Patna High Court

Chinta DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of her antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Chinta Devi, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 125 litres of liquor from a kitchen behind her house. She argued that the liquor was not in her possession, that the location did not belong to her, and that a disgruntled chowkidar falsely implicated her to pressure her husband. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise, it would be confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the alleged facts constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30(a)
Section 482(2)
liquor seizure
false implication
clean antecedent
high court order

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28052 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2026 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Chinta Devi Wife of Vinay Sah Resident of Village - Kataha, P.S.- Mehsi,
                 District - East Champaran.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

                                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

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and

                   allegation is of recovery of 125 liters of liquor from a kitchen

                   situated behind the house of the petitioner.

                                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 even alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner,

                   but then is adjacent to her house and she came to be implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28052 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
                                            2/3




          at the instance of Chowkidar with whom her husband is on an

          inimical term. It is also submitted that it appears that

          Chowkidar, in order to coerce her husband into submission,

          falsely implicated the petitioner, when petitioner admittedly is a

          person with clean antecedent.

                       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.

          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 Mehsi

          P.S. Case No. 59 of 2026 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 even one case

          then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed her antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28052 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…