Patna High Court
Sangeeta DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sangeeta Devi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged possession of ten litres of liquor. She contended that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the liquor was recovered from a jointly owned family house, not from her conscious possession, and that the allegation stemmed from a watchman's claim motivated by an inimical relationship with her husband. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court noted that the amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and deemed the petitioner’s involvement uncertain. Consequently, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and a six‑week surrender, directing the trial court to verify her antecedent and conditionally confirm the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence involves alleged possession of liquor under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act without conscious possession.
- Whether the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30 Excise Act
- possession
- joint family property
- women
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38538 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-402 Year-2024 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sangeeta Devi W/o Rajan Manjhi @ Ratan Manjhi Resident of - Kaurihar
Musahari Tola, P.S.- Raxaul, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Tripti Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman
and allegation is of recovery of 10 litres of liquor from house of
the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from her 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 petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38538 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within her
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and she came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar with whom her husband is on an inimical term.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Raxaul P. S. Case No.402 of 2024, 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 petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38538 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed her 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.