Patna High Court
Badhiya DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bail bonds and verification of her criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Badhiya Devi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 45 litres of liquor from her residence. The petitioner argued that the liquor was found in a joint family house, she was not arrested on the spot, and there was no proof of her conscious possession, especially after the 2018 amendment that abolished the concept of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offence was established. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of her criminal antecedents. The order also stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas confirmation would follow if only one prior case is verified.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged possession of liquor is not proven and the property is jointly owned.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removing the doctrine of deemed possession on the bail application.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent(s) should influence the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- joint family property
- deemed possession
- bail bonds
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28017 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-474 Year-2025 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
Badhiya Devi W/O Late Raju Manjhi R/V- Gurptichak, PS- Masaurhi, Dist-
Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Eashita Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 45 litres of liquor from the
house of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from her conscious possession and even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28017 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within her
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and she came to be implicated at the instance of
local person, but the name of the person, who disclosed the
name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted
that it absolutely does not stand to reason that how local person
would know who had concealed the liquor in the house.
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.5,000/- (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 Masaurhi P. S. Case No.474 of 2025, 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.28017 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
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 more than 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…