Patna High Court
Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Sunita Devi applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under multiple sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, stemming from a police raid that recovered 1.2 litres of liquor from her residence. She claimed the informant’s allegations were false and that she was not arrested at the scene, seeking protection from arrest. The State opposed the bail, arguing that she was apprehended, the liquor was seized, and she, along with others, assaulted police and damaged vehicles while trying to free her. The court examined the FIR and the submissions of both sides and concluded that granting anticipatory bail would send a wrong message. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Sunita Devi in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and alleged assault on police.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 127(2), 132, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 324(5), 74
- Excise Act
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- illegal assembly
- assault on police
- excise law
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38510 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2025 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Sunita Devi W/o Gauri Shankar Mahto R/o Dekuli Chatti, Basdeopur
Darbhanga Kapchhahi, P.S.- Sonki, District- Darbhanga, Bihar- 846009
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh, Advocate
Mr. Jeet Kishor Mahto, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-06-2026 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 Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 109, 132, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4)(5), 74 and
127(2) of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case
under the Excise Act and the informant based on an information
alleges that house of petitioner was raided and from her
possession 1.2 liters of liquor was recovered and when Sunita
was being brought to Police Station by police when crowd
gathered forming an unlawful assembly and tried to flee Sunita
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38510 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
after attacking the force.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that it does not with clarity allege whether petitioner was taken
to the police station after being arrested or not. It is further
submitted petitioner was not arrested from the place of
occurrence, as such, the instant anticipatory bail application has
been filed.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the anticipatory bail application and submits that from perusal
of the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner was apprehended by
Sonali and on search 1.2 liters of liquor was recovered from her
and it appears that accused persons gathered at the place of
occurrence and thereafter assaulted the police force including
the informant brutally and even damaged two police vehicles for
freeing the petitioner, it is thus submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the same will send a wrong
message.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38510 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.