Patna High Court
Chinta DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of direct possession, anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC may be granted subject to verification of antecedent.
Summary
Chinta Devi, the widow of the late Arjun Manjhi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 15 litres of liquor and 200 litres of mahua from a public place (palani). The petitioner asserted that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the alleged liquor was not in her conscious possession; she further claimed that a watchman, who had a personal dispute with her husband, falsely implicated her. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to verification of her antecedent. The order stipulated that if any criminal antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of direct possession and clean antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged false implication by a watchman affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- false implication
- women
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26573 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2026 Thana- Gaura P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
Chinta Devi Wife of Late Arjun Manjhi Resident of Village - Gaura, Paswan
Tola, P.S.- Gaura and District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh
Mr. Ranjeet Patel
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman
and allegation is of recovery of 15 litres of liquor from palani of
petitioner along with 200 litres of mahua pass which was
destroyed apart from other recoveries as alleged in the FIR from
palani of different accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26573 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
recovered from her conscious possession and palani is a place
outside the house and thus is accessible to public at large. It is
further submitted that no prudent person would use her own
premises for committing a crime and thus, would create
evidence against herself and hence, would get implicated. It is
also submitted that she came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar with whom her husband is on an inimical term. It is
next submitted that Chaukidar in order to coerce her husband
into submission falsely implicated the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Gaura P. S. Case No.59 of 2026, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26573 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…