Sato DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30576 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2026 Thana- Ramgarh Chowk District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Sato Devi wife of Bharthari Manjhi Resident of Village -Panghara P.S.
                 -Ramgarh Chowk District -Lakhisarai

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                     Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Umanath Mishra, learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The        petitioner      is   apprehending         her     arrest

                   connection with Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 51 of 2026,

                   F.I.R. dated 01.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable

                   under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.

                                3. Recovery is of 04 liters of country made liquor and

                   150 to 200 Kgs. of Jawa Mahua.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been

                   implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

                   allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the

                   petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30576 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/4




          From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the recovery has been

          made from the house of co-accused Bharthari Manjhi and

          petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on

          the ground that she is wife of co-acused Bharthari Manjhi and

          except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during

          investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the

          present occurrence. He further submits that co-accused

          Bharthari Manjhi has been arrested from the place of

          occurrence. It appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that

          nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of

          the petitiner rather recovery has been made from the place of

          occurrence. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the

          petitioner. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure

          prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr. P.C./ Section

          103 of BNSS, 2023 No case, whatsoever, would be made out

          against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

          Act.

                       5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of

          the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-

          arrest bail would not be maintainable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30576 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




                       6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.LJ.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

          counsel for the petitioner.

                       7. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that the

          petitioner having clean antecedent and she has been made

          accused merely on the ground that she is wife of co-accused

          Bharthari Manjhi, let the petitioner, above named, in the event

          of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period

          of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. be released

          on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)

          with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned District & Additional Sessions Judge IV-cum-Special

          Excise Court-I, Lakhisarai in connection with Ramgarh Chowk

          PS. Case No. 51 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down

          under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section

          482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:-

                       1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30576 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                           4/4




                         and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

                         on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                          3. And further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                                       (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-

U          T