Patna High Court
Munni DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to Munni Devi subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Munni Devi, a resident of Mithepur, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act after a bag allegedly containing illicit country‑made liquor was thrown during a police raid. No liquor was found in her conscious possession and she claimed the accusation was based solely on her gender and poverty. She applied for anticipatory bail, relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a prima facie offence. The State opposed, citing her criminal antecedents. The court, considering the lack of possession, the precedent, and her status as a woman, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and required a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Whether the absence of contraband in the petitioner’s conscious possession justifies the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 30
- Section 438
- gender considerations
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43911 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2026 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
Munni Devi Wife of Rajesh Chaudhary Resident of Mithepur, P.S- Garakha,
Distt.- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Garkha P.S. Case No. 309 of 2026 instituted under Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
lodged on 13.03.2026 by the informant, Manish Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information, the place was raided, a lady threw the
bag and managed to escape. The locals gave the name of this
petitioner. Further, Nitish Kumar and Usha Devi were arrested
and there is recovery/seizure of 15 liters of country made liquor.
Further, from the bag which was thrown by the lady, 06 liters of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43911 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/4
country made liquor was recovered/seized. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because she is a lady and a poor person gets implication and
nothing has been recovered from her conscious possession.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
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 submitting that
she has criminal antecedent.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the petitioner is a lady, 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 her arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43911 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/4
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 Garkha P.S. Case No.
309 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge,
Excise-I, Saran at Chapra 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
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 her
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43911 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
4/4
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of her 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.