Patna High Court
Nandani KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner subject to verification of her antecedent and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Nandani Kumari, sought anticipatory bail after her husband and an associate were apprehended with ten litres of liquor from a motorcycle registered in her name. She argued that she had no knowledge of the alleged offence, possessed a clean antecedent, and that ownership of the vehicle did not constitute participation in the crime. The State opposed the bail, contending that the vehicle was used to transport illicit liquor. The Court examined the submissions, noting the lack of arrest of the petitioner and the principle that mere ownership does not imply culpability, while also emphasizing the need to verify her criminal antecedent. Accordingly, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond, sureties, and verification of her antecedent under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a vehicle owner not arrested and claiming lack of knowledge of the offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- women
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5666 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhepura
======================================================
Nandani Kumari Wife of Roushan Kumar Resident of Village- Manikpur,
ward no. 02, P.S.- Bhrrahi (Madhepura), District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr Sanjay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
======================================================
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 10 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
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5666 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
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
her husband Raushan would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged as he was also apprehended at the spot along with
Guddu.
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
Madhepura Excise P. S. Case No.55 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5666 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his 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…