Patna High Court
Soni DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Soni Devi, sought anticipatory bail after learning of a pending case under the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of 34 litres of liquor from a joint family house. She argued that she was not apprehended at the scene, no liquor was found in her conscious possession, and the concept of deemed possession had been abolished after the 2018 amendment. The State opposed the bail, contending the allegations were sufficient to deny anticipatory relief. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, conditioning it on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and directing verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed upon verification.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the prosecution's case against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- Section 482
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27125 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-672 Year-2021 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Soni Devi W/O Mithun Manjhi Resident of Beside Railway Line Mushari,
P.S- Digha, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a),
30(b), 30(c) and 32(iii) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 34 liters of liquor from house of four
different accused persons including the petitioner as detailed in
the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from her conscious possession and the house in
question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27125 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after amendment in the excise act in the year
2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
has been done away with and he came to be implicated at the
instance of local person, but then the name of the person who
disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when
petitioner has not been implicated based on secret information.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
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 Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Digha
P.S. Case No. 672 of 2021 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27125 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and
in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more
than one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…