Patna High Court
Meena Devi @ Mina DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Meena Devi, the wife of Raju Soren, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 4 litres of liquor recovered from a motorcycle she owned. She argued that she was not arrested at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and was unaware that a friend misused her vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of her criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; if exactly two, the bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of conscious possession and ownership of the vehicle justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- criminal antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- women
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27630 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2025 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger
======================================================
Meena Devi @ Mina Devi Wife of Raju Soren @ Raju Murmu Resident Of
Village- Barki Fulwariya PO -Haveli Kharagpur PS -Kharagpur District
-Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jainandra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-06-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 4 litres of liquor
from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from her conscious possession and she came to be
implicated based on the fact that she is owner of the seized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27630 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
her own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
create evidence against herself and hence would get implicated,
it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that her friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged, who also fled from the spot. It is also submitted that it
is not a case of the prosecution that they saw a woman fleeing
from the place of occurrence.
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 his 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. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten 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 Kharagpur P.S. Case
No. 209 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27630 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
cases 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 two cases in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.