Jaibun khatun @ Jaibul KhatunversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31436 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2021 Thana- KALUAHI District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Jaibun khatun @ Jaibul Khatun Wife of Manir Rain R/O Vill.- Deodha, Uttari,
                 Ward No.03, P.S - Deodha, District - Madhubani

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

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

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

                   petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in

                   connection with Kaluahi P.S. Case No. 151 of 2021, F.I.R dated

                   03.10.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section

                   272, 273 and 34 of the IPC and Section 30(a) of Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                   3. Recovery is of 675 liters of Nepali Sofi wine.

                                   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 it appears

                   from the F.I.R as well as seizure list that altogether 675 liters of

                   Nepali Sofi Wine has been recovered from the vehicle in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31436 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/4




          question and one Raushan Kumar was apprehended from the

          place of occurrence and he has disclosed that the owner of the

          vehicle is Rakesh Yadav. He further submits that in fact, the

          petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and

          she has no concern at all with the alleged recoverey of the illicit

          liquor and she has been made accused merely on the ground she

          is owner of the vehicle. There is non-compliance with

          mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100

          of Cr.P.C. 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.

                          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.L.J.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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31436 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




                          7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, she has

          been made accused merely on the ground that she is owner of

          the vehicle in question and the petitioner has clean antecedent,

          let the petitioner, above named, in the event of her 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 the learned

          Exclusive Special Judge, Excise, Madhubani in connection with

          Kaluahi P.S. Case No. 151 of 2021, subject to the conditions as

          laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

          Procedure 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 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.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31436 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                        4/4




                                   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)
Vanisha/-

U      T