Patna High Court
Rinku DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedent.
Summary
Rinku Devi applied for anticipatory bail after learning that she might be arrested in a case alleging possession of six litres of liquor under Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. She argued that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the liquor was found in a jointly owned family house, not in her conscious possession, making it uncertain that she was the offender. She further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and that the FIR omitted the name of the informant, weakening the prosecution's case. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and a six‑week verification of her criminal antecedent, with the order to be confirmed or cancelled based on that verification.
Issues considered
- The applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the context of alleged liquor possession.
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession or presumed offender applies after the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the joint family ownership of the premises negates the presumption of the petitioner’s possession.
- The impact of the non‑disclosure of the informant’s name in the FIR on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 3(5), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- liquor possession
- excise law
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- gender considerations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.517 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Rinku Devi Wife of Sampat Sahni @ Sampati Sahni R/o - Bundel Khand,
Ward No.11, P.S - Basopatti, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 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 offences punishable under Sections 274, 275
and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 6 litres of liquor from the house of
the 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 the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.517 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
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 in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the local persons but then the name of the person who disclosed
the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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 for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Basopatti
P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.517 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his 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 is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…