Patna High Court
Lalti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Lalti Devi, the owner of a scooty from which 20 litres of liquor were recovered, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended in 2022). She argued that she had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware that a friend had misused her vehicle. The State opposed her application for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties of the same amount. The order further directed the trial court to verify her antecedents; if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) CrPC in a case of alleged possession of liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle from which liquor was recovered suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60758 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2024 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna
======================================================
Lalti Devi D/O Bauya ji Singh Resident of Village and Mohalla-Sahayanpur
Dhanauat, P.S-Khagaual, Dst.-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Amendment Act,
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is woman and
allegation is of recovery of 20 litres of liquor from a Scooty.
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 it next submitted that no prudent
person would use her own vehicle for committing an occurrence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60758 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
2/3
and thus would create evidence against herself and hence would
get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that her friend would misuse the vehicle in
the manner as alleged.
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 Khagaul
P.S. Case No. 399 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
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
before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60758 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
3/3
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
Checking your session…