Patna High Court
Mintu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the seizure was not from the petitioner’s conscious possession and no offence under Section 30(a) is made out, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Mintu Devi sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 8 litres of country‑made liquor from an open area outside her house. She contended that the liquor was not in her conscious possession, she had no criminal antecedent, and relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is established. The State argued the seizure was near her door, implying her involvement. The High Court, considering the precedent and the petitioner’s circumstances, granted anticipatory bail with a cash bond and several conditions, reserving the right to cancel the bail if facts change. The order remains effective for four weeks from issuance.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the alleged seizure is not from the petitioner’s conscious possession?
- Do the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 30(a) of the Act?
- Do the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent and gender merit the grant of anticipatory bail?
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- seizure of liquor
- possession
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- women
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25859 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2026 Thana- DEEPNAGAR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Mintu Devi w/o Shankar Kewat Resident of Village- Takiyapar, P.S.-
Deepnagar, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act lodged on 23.02.2026 by the informant,
Ramnarayan Harijan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police, on secret
information, raided the place and outside the house of the
petitioner, 8 liters of country-made liquor recovered/seized.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
perusal of the FIR would show that nothing has been recovered
from her conscious possession and/or the house rather from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25859 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
open place 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
the recovery/seizure is from near the door of the petitioner’s
house.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that she is a lady, recovery is not from her conscious
possession and she do not have any criminal antecedent, 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25859 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
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 District & Addl. Sessions Judge-V-cum-
Special Judge, (Excise-I), Biharsharif, Nalanda in connection
with Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 101 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 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25859 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
(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…