Patna High Court
Badhiya DeviversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied where illicit liquor is recovered from the accused's premises, as per the Full Bench precedent.
Summary
Petitioners Badhiya Devi and Punita Devi sought anticipatory bail after the police recovered 15 litres of illicit liquor from Badhiya's house and 5 litres from Punita's house in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioners argued that no incriminating material was found in their conscious possession and that they were merely suspected. The State contended that the recovery of 20 litres of illicit liquor from the petitioners' premises precluded the grant of anticipatory bail, relying on a Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar. The Court examined whether the presence of illicit liquor in the petitioners' houses established sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail. Relying on the precedent, the Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted in such circumstances. Consequently, the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when illicit liquor is recovered from the accused's premises under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the presence of seized liquor establishes sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail despite lack of conscious possession.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illicit liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- suspicion
- Full Bench precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28639 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2025 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Badhiya Devi S/o Late Raju Manjhi R/V - Gurptichak, P.S. - Masaurhi, Dist.
- Patna.
2. Punita Devi Wife of Satya Narayan Manjhi R/V - Gurptichak, P.S. -
Masaurhi, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Eashita Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
State.
2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in Masaurhi P. S. Case
No. 135 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, 15 liters illicit liquor
was recovered from the house of petitioner no. 1 and 5 liters
illicit liquor was recovered from the house of petitioner no. 2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that no incriminating material has been recovered from
conscious possession of the petitioners and they are no way
connected with the aforesaid recovery. Petitioners have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28639 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/2
made accused only on suspicion.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that total 20
liters illicit liquor was recovered from the houses of these
petitioners and as such, they are not entitled to the privilege of
anticipatory bail in view of Full Bench decision of this Court
rendered in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089 (F.B.).
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, anticipatory bail
application of the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…