Patna High Court
Reena 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 antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Reena Devi, applied for anticipatory bail after a police case was registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 28 litres of liquor from her motorcycle. She argued that she had no prior criminal record, was a woman, and that the liquor was seized from the vehicle owned by her, not from her personal possession, as the alleged offender Rohit was apprehended at the spot. The State opposed the bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle could implicate her in the offence. The Court considered the petitioner's clean antecedent, the lack of direct possession, and the principle that mere ownership does not automatically constitute participation in the crime. Accordingly, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and verification of her antecedents under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be revoked, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a vehicle owner alleged to be involved in an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to establish participation in the crime
- Whether the petitioner’s clean criminal antecedent warrants the grant of 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
- Section 30(a)
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5661 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2025 Thana- KACCHWA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Reena Devi Wife of Sanjay Ram Resident of Kaupa, P.S.- Karakat, District -
Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md Fazle Karim
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pronoti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 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 28 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
motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5661 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
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 Rohit would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged as
he was also apprehended at the spot.
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
Kachchawa P. S. Case No.147 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5661 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
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…