Gudiya KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33165 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-325 Year-2024 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
                 ======================================================
                 Gudiya Khatoon W/O Taib Mansuri R/O Village- Parmanpur, P.O.- Parariya,
                 P.S.- Pramanpur, Dist.- Buxar.
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   14-05-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 as well as

                   Section 317(4) of the BNS, 2023.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and

                   allegation is of recovery of 123.200 litres of liquor from a

                   Mahindra Vehicle.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from her conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that petitioner came to be implicated based on the fact that she is

                   owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33165 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                            2/3




          person would use her own vehicle for committing an occurrence

          and, thus, would create evidence against herself and, hence,

          would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was

          completely unaware that Chandan Kumar Singh would misuse

          the vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended

          from the spot. It is lastly submitted that it is not the case of the

          prosecution that they saw a woman fleeing from the place of

          occurrence.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,

          above-named, in the event of her 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) 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 Ramgarh P.S. Case

          No. 325 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under

          Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned

          Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33165 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,

                     it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed her

                     antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail

                     application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                     shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that

                     petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T