Patna High Court
Sunita Devi @ Sonita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Sunita Devi applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 30(a), (b) and (c) of the Excise Act, where liquor was allegedly recovered from her husband’s house. She argued that she has a clean antecedent, was not in actual possession of the liquor, and that the allegation was based on a false complaint by a watchman hostile to her husband. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that she be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and two sureties, subject to verification of her criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC when the accused is not in actual possession of the alleged contraband.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018 eliminating the concept of deemed possession affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether a clean criminal antecedent is a requisite condition for granting anticipatory bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(b), 30(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4474 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2025 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sunita Devi @ Sonita Devi W/O Gudul Chaudhari R/O Village - Shivpur
( Dakshin Baraon), P.S- Nokha, Dist.- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Akbar Ali
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2026 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
Sections 30(a)(b)(c) 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 23 litres of liquor from the
house of Guddul Chaudhary and 10 litres of liquor from the
house of Nageshwar Chaudhary.
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 she came to be
implicated based on the fact that she is wife of Guddul
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4474 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
Chaudhary. It is submitted that 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 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. It is also
submitted that in order to coerce her husband into submission
the chaukidar falsely implicated the petitioner, when admittedly
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
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
Nokha P. S. Case No.476 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4474 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
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
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…