Savitri DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33644 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2026 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Savitri Devi W/O Somaru Rajwar R/O Vill.- Mahuari, P.s.- Akhori Gola,
                 Dist.- Rohtas.
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and

                   is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 61.400 litres of

                   liquor from the house of the petitioner.

                                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 the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it

                   cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who

                   had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33644 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                            2/3




          was within her 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. It is next

          submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of

          the Chawkidar but then it is submitted that it absolutely does not

          stand to reason that how the Chawkidar would known who had

          concealed the liquor in the house and if the Chawkidar was

          aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence

          then why he did not inform the police prior to the institution of

          the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the

          prosecution.

                       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.15,000/-

          (Rupees Fifteen 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 Akhodhigola P.S.

          Case No. 120 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33644 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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

                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than

                     three cases, 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 has antecedent of only three cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T