Patna High Court
Lakhpati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Lakhpati Devi, Shyam Bahadur Chaudhary and Lal Bahadur Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 alleging recovery of 200 litres of semi‑prepared liquor and 80 litres of liquor from their joint family house. They argued that they have no prior criminal record, that the liquor was stored in a joint family property and that they had no conscious possession or knowledge of it, especially after the 2018 amendment that abolished the concept of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted arrest. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioners furnish bail bonds and sureties, and that the trial court verify their criminal antecedents before confirming the bail. The order also stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be withdrawn for those individuals.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act in 2018, which removed the concept of deemed possession, precludes the prosecution from attributing possession of the liquor to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 30(c)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- excise offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31873 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-442 Year-2025 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran
======================================================
1. Lakhpati Devi W/o Lal Bahadur Chaudhary R/o village- Sikti Bhikham,
P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra
2. Shyam Bahadur Chaudhary S/o Pahlad Chaudhary R/o village- Sikti
Bhikham, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra
3. Lal Bahadur Chaudhary S/o Pahlad Chaudhary R/o village- Sikti Bhikham,
P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a)(c) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.1
is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 200 litres of semi
prepared liquor along with 80 litres of liquor from joint house of
the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioners were not
arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31873 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family
property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was
petitioner, who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor
kept in the house was within his 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 they came to be implicated at the instance of
chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term. It is also
submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the
petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the
police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each
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 Mashrakh P.S. Case No.442/2025, subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31873 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners
and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of
even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that
petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed with respect to those petitioners whose criminal
antecedent does not tally but if after verification the criminal
antecedent as recorded hereinabove tallies with the petitioners in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.