Patna High Court

Babita KumariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions and verification of her antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Babita Kumari, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 735 ml of liquor from a motorcycle she owned. She argued that she had no prior criminal record, was not present at the spot of seizure, and had no knowledge of the misuse of her vehicle by another individual, Dinesh, who was apprehended. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering her clean antecedent, gender, and lack of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC, pending verification of her antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulates that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence makes the owner liable for anticipatory bail denial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise offence
liquor seizure
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
Section 30(a)
Section 482

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5202 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-823 Year-2025 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Babita Kumari Wife of Shailesh Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Bhuiyan,
                 P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Nalin Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Md. Nazir Ansari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-02-2026               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 Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    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 735 ml of liquor from a motorcycle.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   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

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use

                   her own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5202 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
                                            2/3




          create evidence against herself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that Dinesh would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged,

          who was also apprehended from the spot.

                   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, 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 Garkha

          P.S. Case No. 823 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid

          down under Section 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 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

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed her antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5202 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…