Patna High Court
CHINTA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is to be granted provisionally, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Chinta Devi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 12.5 litres of liquor. She argued that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the liquor was recovered from a location not belonging to her, implicating her through a false complaint by a watchman hostile to her husband. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, directed that she be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of her criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioner accused under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession of the alleged liquor justify granting bail.
- What conditions should be imposed on the provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- bail bond
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5462 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- Kusumbha District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Chinta Devi Wife Of Ravindra Choudhari Resident Of Village - Aamanthpur,
P.S.- Kushumbha, District - Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Nandan Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-02-2026 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) 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 12.5 litres of liquor from a sack
allegedly thrown by the petitioner.
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 even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and she came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5462 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
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 Thousand) 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 Kushumbha P. S. Case No.78 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
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5462 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
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…