Patna High Court
Rima DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as no offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act is made out against the petitioner, subject to conditions.
Summary
Rima Devi, the wife of Vinay Kumar (also known as Lal Sah), was named in an FIR under sections 30(a), 41(1) and 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged involvement in a large spirit liquor smuggling operation. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that she is a housewife with no criminal antecedent and that her husband’s confession was obtained under duress. The State opposed, relying on the husband’s naming of the petitioner as an accomplice. The Court examined the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail applications under the Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. Finding that no liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s possession and that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence against her, the Court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order remains subject to revocation if the petitioner is found to have a criminal antecedent or violates any condition. The bail bond was set at Rs.10,000 with two sureties and specific compliance requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the mere naming of the petitioner by her husband in the FIR suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner has any criminal antecedent that would preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- spirit liquor smuggling
- section 76(2)
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25858 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2026 Thana- PARSA District- Saran
======================================================
Rima Devi W/o Vinay Kumar Sah @ Lal Sah Resident of Village- Kisunpur,
P.S.- Bheldi, Dist.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Parsa P.S. Case No. 97 of 2026 for the offence
under sections 30(a), 41(1) and 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act lodged on 25.02.2026 by the informant, Omprakash.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information about transportation of large quantity of spirit
liquor, raided the line hotel near Rewa Ghat Bridge, those
present tried to escape, one Vinay Kumar @ Lal Sah was
apprehended and on his disclosure a traveler four wheeler was
intercepted. This led to recovery/seizure of 960 liter spirit liquor.
It was informed by the driver that it belongs to Ahishek Nishad.
On further interrogation those apprehended informed that this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25858 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
petitioner is part of the team which are indulged in the business
of spirit liquor and his wife is also involved in the case. This led
to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
allegation against her is that her husband, Lal Sah @ Vinay
Kumar was apprehended and he gave the name of his
accomplice which included his own wife (petitioner herein). He
further submits that she being a house wife has no role play, the
Police in its custody forced him to confess the name of the wife
and she do not have any criminal antecedent.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that his
own husband has named her.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25858 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from her conscious
possession, is a lady, FIR lodged and she will be facing the trial,
in that background, this Court is inclined to extend her the
privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the
statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal
antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Exclusive Excise Court No. 03
Saran at Chapra/Court concerned in connection with Parsa P.S.
Case No. 97 of 2026 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25858 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of her
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of her bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…