Patna High Court
Reena @ Reena DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the bar under Section 76(2) does not preclude bail where the FIR does not establish an offence against her.
Summary
Reena Devi, a housewife, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act alleging possession of one litre of country-made liquor seized during a raid. She claimed she had no role in the alleged offence and was implicated due to local enmity. The prosecution opposed bail, but the court considered the precedent set in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) if no offence is made out on the basis of the FIR. Noting that nothing was recovered from her possession, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and additional safeguards. The order required a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation with investigation, court appearances, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for the alleged possession of liquor when no material was found in her conscious possession.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30, 76
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- local enmity
- seizure of liquor
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43890 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2026 Thana- SIMRI District- Buxar
======================================================
Reena @ Reena Devi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Simri P.S. Case No. 107 of 2026 instituted under Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
lodged on 11.05.2026 by the informant, Shyamdeo Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that during patrolling, house was raided and though accused
managed to escape, there is recovery/seizure of 01 liters of
country made liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she
is house-wife having no role to play in the matter and only
because of local enmity, got implicated.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43890 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out 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 opposes the prayer.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from her conscious
possession, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
her the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his 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 Simri P.S. Case No. 107
of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise
Court No.02, Buxar 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.43890 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
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 his
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 his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-Ankita
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.