Patna High Court
Raj KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate and granted provisional bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Raj Kumari, 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 the alleged recovery of 1,460.040 litres of liquor from a Tata Magic vehicle she owned. She argued that she had no knowledge of the vehicle’s misuse, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and had a clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle could implicate her in the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that she be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of her antecedents. It further stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be revoked, otherwise the provisional order would be confirmed. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence makes the owner liable for anticipatory bail
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent is a condition for confirming anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30 Excise Act
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.617 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2025 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya
======================================================
Raj Kumari W/o- Uday Kumar R/v- Nischalganj Manih (Manikpur) Habbipur
Ps- Parwalpur Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Piyush Kant Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-01-2026 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 1460.040 litres of liquor from a
Tata Magic vehilce.
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 he 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.617 of 2026(3) dt.15-01-2026
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
Shashikant would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged as
he was also apprehended at the spot along with Ram Kanhaiya
Kumar.
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
Atri P. S. Case No.205 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.617 of 2026(3) dt.15-01-2026
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 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…