Patna High Court
Umrawati Devi @ Umaravati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Umrawati Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 110 litres of liquor from a field she shared with Naresh Prasad. She argued that she was not arrested at the scene, no liquor was found in her possession, and that the complaint originated from a watchman who had a personal dispute with her husband. The petitioner also highlighted her two prior excise cases, contending that the investigation was mechanically driven without proper inquiry. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of her criminal antecedent; if more than two prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of two excise cases precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39880 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Umrawati Devi @ Umaravati Devi W/o- Chanu Prasad @ Chanu Bin
Resident of Village- Surwal PS- Barauli District-Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 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 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 two cases under the Excise Act and
is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 110 litres of liquor
from field of Naresh Prasad and 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 no prudent person would use her own premises for
committing an occurrence and, thus, would create evidence
against herself and, hence, would get implicated. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39880 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the Chawkidar with whom husband of the petitioner is on an
inimical term. It is also submitted that 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. It is lastly submitted that once an accused is
implicated in a case relating to excise the police start
implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation of the case.
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.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten 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 Barauli P.S. Case
No. 58 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39880 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
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 two
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 two cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.