Patna High Court
Sangita Devi @ Sanjita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
Sangita Devi, a woman, applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 72 litres of liquor. She argued that the liquor was recovered from a public place, she was not in possession, and the FIR does not name the informant, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. The petitioner has one prior case under the Excise Act. The High Court, after hearing both sides, directed that she be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court was instructed to verify her criminal antecedents and confirm the bail if she has only the one prior case, otherwise the bail may be withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged contravention of Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of possession and the lack of an informant's name in the FIR affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
- women accused
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32139 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2025 Thana- KUNDWACHAINPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Sangita Devi @ Sanjita Devi Wife of Ashok Mukhiya Resident of Village-
Kharu/Kharuwa PS -Kundwa Chainpur District -East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kundan Rathore Alias Kundan Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 72 litres of
liquor from a place near Sainik road charmuhani.
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 petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32139 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
at the instance of local person, but the name of the person, who
disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R.,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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.5,000/- (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 Kundwa Chainpur P. S. Case No.284 of 2025, 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 more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32139 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.