Patna High Court
Jira DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Jira Devi, a housewife from Gaya, was named as an accused in an Excise case (Case No. 101 of 2020) under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged seizure of 45 kg of jawa mahua. She claimed she had no knowledge of the seizure, had no criminal antecedents, and only learned of the accusation after receiving a notice. She applied for anticipatory bail, citing a Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which allows such bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. The State opposed, arguing the petition was filed after delay. The Court, considering the petitioner’s lack of knowledge, clean record, and the precedent, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the delay in filing the anticipatory bail application defeats the petition.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of knowledge of the alleged offence and clean criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
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(a)
- Section 76(2)
- delay in filing
- housewife
- seizure of contraband
- Cr.P.C. Section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34979 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Gaya
======================================================
Jira Devi W/o Late Surendra Choudhary @ Surendra Chaudhary @ Bauna
Chaudhary R/o Village - Dindayal Nagar, P.S - Magadh Medical, District –
Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 1. Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Excise P.S. Case No. 101 of 2020 instituted under Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that inside the house, there was recovery/seizure of 45 kg of
jawa mahua. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she
being the house lady had no knowledge about the
recovery/seizure nor about the present case and only after she
got notice came to know that the petitioner has been made an
accused. She has no criminal antecedent.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34979 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/3
2019(2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an application
for anticipatory bail in a case arising our 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, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh opposes
the prayer submitting that she delayed coming to the Court.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that though there is delay, the contention of the petitioner is
that she, being the house lady, had no knowledge about it.
Further, she has no criminal antecedent. in that background this
Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of her 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) with two sureties of
the like amount each in connection with Excise P.S. Case No.
101 of 2020 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Excise Court No. 3, Gaya subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34979 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/3
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner 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 her bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner 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;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of her bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Nirmal/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.