Patna High Court
Prema DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners, subject to conditions and verification of their antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, three residents of Utara village, sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case (PS‑Case No. 372 of 2025) alleging that 8.6 litres of liquor were recovered from their jointly‑owned house, contravening Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. They contended that they had no conscious possession of the liquor, that the property is a joint family asset, and that they have clean antecedents, arguing that the concept of deemed possession was abolished by the 2018 amendment. The State opposed the bail, maintaining that the alleged possession sufficed for prosecution. Justice Satyavrat Verma, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 500 with two sureties, verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents, and a deposit of Rs 1,500 with the Patna High Court Advocate Association. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case of alleged possession of liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the joint family ownership of the house negates the presumption of possession by the petitioners.
- Whether the absence of a clean antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Cr.P.C. 438
- BNSS 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6048 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Prema Devi @ Prabha Devi W/o Amirak Paswan R/o Village - Utara, P.S -
Chandi, Dist. - Nalanda.
2. Malti Devi @ Daulti Devi Wife of Adalat Paswan R/o Village - Utara, P.S -
Chandi, Dist. - Nalanda.
3. Adalat Paswan Son of Amirak Paswan R/o Village - Utara, P.S - Chandi,
Dist. - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.
1 and 2 are women and allegation is of recovery of 8.6 litres of
liquor from the house of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6048 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
submitted that the house in question is a joint family property, as
such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were the
petitioners who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor
kept in the house was within their knowledge and after
amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with. It is next submitted that petitioners came to be implicated
at the instance of the local person but then the name of the
person who disclosed the name of the petitioners is not
disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution, more so, when petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in
the event of their 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) each 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6048 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
Chandi P.S. Case No. 372 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 petitioners and
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their
antecedent 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
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
based on instruction submits that petitioner undertakes to
deposit an amount of Rs.1,500/- with the Advocate Association
of the Patna High Court within a period of two weeks from
today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…