Patna High Court
Ful Kumari Devi @ Ful KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioners' antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Ful Kumari Devi and Nageshwar Chaudhari, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 30(a), (b) and (c) of the Excise Act for possession of liquor recovered from a joint family house. They argued that they have no prior criminal record, that the liquor was not in their conscious possession, and that the concept of deemed possession has been removed by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their antecedents and other conditions under Section 438(2). The order also required the petitioners to deposit Rs.1,500 with the Advocates’ Association. The application was allowed, with the proviso that the bail may be withdrawn if any criminal antecedent is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in a case under the Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged possession of liquor can be attributed to the petitioners given the joint family property context and the removal of deemed possession under the 2018 amendment.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(b), 30(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- liquor possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3712 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2025 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Ful Kumari Devi @ Ful Kumari W/o Nageshwar Chaudhari @ Nageshwar
Chaudhary R/o Village- Shivpur, PS- Nokha, Dist- Rohtas
2. Nageshwar Chaudhari S/o Wasudev Chaudhary @ Wasudev Chaudhari R/o
Village- Shivpur, PS- Nokha, Dist- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Akbar Ali
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a),(b), (c) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner
no.1 is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 23 litres of
liquor from the house of Guddul Chaudhary and 10 litres of
liquor from the house of the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3712 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was the petitioners, who had kept the liquor
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within their
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and they came to be implicated at the instance
of Chaukidar, but then, it is submitted that if Chaukidar was
aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence,
then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the
present 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 petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court where the case is pending/successor Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3712 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
connection with Nokha P. S. Case No.476 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 petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case,
then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners based on instruction submits that
petitioners undertake to deposit an amount of Rs.1500/- with
Advocates’ Association, Patna High Court, Patna within a
period of two weeks from today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…