Babita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5411 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- Araria Sangram District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Babita Devi wife of Rameshwar Das Resident of Village- Singrahi, PS-
                 Laukaha, District- Madhubani
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 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 Sections 274 and

                   275 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 woman and

                   allegation is of recovery of 36 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

                                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 petitioner 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5411 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
                                            2/3




          and thus would create evidence against herself and hence would

          get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was

          completely unaware that Vivek Kumar Yadav would misuse the

          vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended

          from the spot along with Roushan Kumar Yadav.

                       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 Arariya

          Sangram P.S. Case No. 09 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

          it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it

          would be presumed that petitioner had concealed her antecedent
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5411 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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