Patna High Court
Fuljhari DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., subject to verification of her criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Fuljhari Devi, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging recovery of ten litres of liquor from a village area not under her exclusive control. She asserted a clean criminal record and argued that the liquor was not in her conscious possession and that the FIR omitted the informant’s name, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed her request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order stipulated that the trial court must verify the petitioner’s antecedent; if any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- clean antecedent
- liquor offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63133 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2025 Thana- DERNI BAZAR District- Saran
======================================================
Fuljhari Devi Wife of Sakaldip Ray Resident of Village - Kherikiya (Sutihar),
Police Station - Derni, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avinash Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 10 litres of liquor from Khirkiya village.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from her conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and
is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of local person but
then name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is
not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63133 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
2/2
prosecution.
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 Derni P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025, 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 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…