Patna High Court
JHUNI KHATOONversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused is not in custody, lacks conscious possession of the contraband, and has a clean antecedent, subject to verification.
Summary
Jhuni Khatoon, the wife of Raushan Shah, applied for anticipatory bail in an excise case where 22 litres of liquor were recovered from a motorcycle she owned. She argued that she had a clean antecedent, was a woman, and had no conscious possession of the liquor, which was seized from the vehicle and not from her person. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Excise Act. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and two sureties, subject to verification of her antecedents under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order stipulated that if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the facts of the excise case.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of conscious possession and clean antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- clean antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- gender considerations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4492 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Jhuni Khatoon W/O Raushan Shah @ Firoj Alam, D/O Rasid Sai Resident Of
Village- Sabano, P.O.- Sabano, P.S.- Hussainabad, District- Palamu,
Jharkhand. At Present Resident Of Village- Baluganj, Baranda Rampur, P.S.-
Dhibra, District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rahul Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta
======================================================
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
Section 30(a) and 32(3) 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 22 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle.
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 owner of the seized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4492 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
her own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would create
evidence against herself and hence, would get implicated. It is
further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
her husband Raushan would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged who was also apprehended at the spot along with Rohit.
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
Excise P. S. Case No.257 of 2025, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4492 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
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…