Patna High Court
Phoolmati Devi @ Fulkumari DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to both petitioners subject to the conditions imposed.
Summary
The petitioners, Phoolmati Devi and Suganti Devi, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 10 litres of country-made liquor, based on an FIR filed after a raid and the testimony of Mahendra Sah. They contended that no liquor was recovered from them and that the accusation was fabricated. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, they argued that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. could be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) of the Excise Act if no offence is established. The State highlighted the criminal antecedent of one petitioner. The Court, noting the lack of material evidence, the petitioners' gender, and the precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions. The order directed that bail be released if the petitioners are arrested or surrender within four weeks, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case arising under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2) of that Act.
- Whether the material on record justifies denial of anticipatory bail when no liquor was recovered from the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- women petitioners
- seizure of liquor
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32214 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2026 Thana- KHAIRA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Phoolmati Devi @ Fulkumari Devi Wife of Chhotelal Mahto @ Chhotan
Mahto Resident of village- Bhikhampur, Po- Tujarpur, P.S- Khaira, Dist-
Saran at Chapra
2. Suganti Devi @ Suganti Kunwar @ Patarki Wife of Late Raja Ram Mahto
@ Nam Resident of village- Bhikhampur, Po- Tujarpur, P.S- Khaira, Dist-
Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jeetendra Narayan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 94 of 2026 instituted
under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
lodged on 14.03.2026 by the informant, Akhilesh Paswan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the place was raided
and there is recovery/seizure of 10 liters of country made liquor.
One Mahendra Sah was taken into custody who gave the name
of this petitioner. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
nothing has been recovered from their and Mahendra Sah being
inimical to them, got implicated.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32214 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019(2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an application
for anticipatory bail in a case arising of of Bihar Excise and
Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under
section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the
FIR, no offence under the said provision is made out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that so
far the petitioner no.2 is concerned, she has criminal antecedent.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties and the
judgment of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as also that both the
petitioners are ladies, nothing has been recovered from their
conscious possession, in that background, this Court is inclined
to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each in connection with Khaira P.S.
Case No. 94 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned 3rd Excl. Spl.
Excise Judge, Saran at Chapra subject to the conditions as laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32214 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other
conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/S.Prasad,
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.