Patna High Court
Lalmuni DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Lalmuni Devi sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of 15 litres of liquor from her house, which is a joint family property. She argued she had no conscious possession, that the concept of deemed possession was removed by the 2018 amendment, and that a watchman falsely implicated her to pressure her husband. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that she furnish a bail bond and two sureties, and that the trial court verify her criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if she has a clean record, the bail will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where the accused claims no conscious possession.
- Whether the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the applicability of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2943 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Lalmuni Devi W/O Badari Majhi @ Badri Majhi Resident of Village-
Manglapur Mushari Tola, Police Station-Sangrampur, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 15 liters of liquor from 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 the house in
question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2943 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within her
knowledge and after amendment in the excise act in the year
2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
has been done away with and she came to be implicated at the
instance of Chowkidar with whom her husband is on an inimical
term. It is also submitted that Chowkidar deliberately implicated
the petitioner with a view to coerce her husband into
submission.
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
Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 212 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2943 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
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 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
Checking your session…