Patna High Court
Pinki KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of her antecedents.
Summary
Pinki Kumari applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 10.620 litres of liquor from a spot adjacent to her house. She asserted that she has a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and was falsely implicated by a watchman who had a personal dispute with her husband. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering her gender, lack of possession, and the possibility of false implication, directed that she be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of her antecedents under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order was conditioned that if any prior case is found, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise it would be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged false implication and absence of possession justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30 Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- gender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28947 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2026 Thana- NAANPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Pinki Kumari W/O Bhartendu Kumar R/o- Ward No. 07, Gaura. P.S-Nanpur,
District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md Danish Quamar
Ms.Madiha Moneer
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 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 is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman
and allegation is of recovery of 10.620 litres of liquor from a
place in front of door of the house of Bhartendu Kumar.
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 alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28947 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
petitioner, but then is adjacent to her house and she came to be
implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom her husband
Bhartendu is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that
Chaukidar with an intent to coerce Bhartendu into submission
falsely implicated the petitioner.
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.500/- (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 Nanpur P. S. Case No.69 of 2026, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
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 even one case, then it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28947 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed her 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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…