Patna High Court
Basanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not warranted and is therefore denied.
Summary
Basanti Devi applied for anticipatory bail after police recovered 20 litres of Mahua wine from a room in a joint family house and alleged her involvement under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022. She contended that the wine was not in her personal residence, that the police search violated Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., and that she has no criminal record. The court examined these submissions and, relying on a Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, found the circumstances insufficient to merit anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected. The court indicated that if the petitioner surrenders, she may seek regular bail, which can be considered without prejudice to the present order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the facts of the case
- Whether the police search and seizure complied with Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 100
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal liquor
- prohibition law
- police search
- Section 100 CrPC
- joint family property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7967 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2025 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada
======================================================
Basanti Devi W/O Kamlesh Rajbanshi Resident of Vill.- Bhalua, P.S.- Sirdala,
Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Ranjan Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with
Sirdala P.S. Case No. 434 / 2025 dated 01.12.2025 registered
for the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Amendment Act, 2022.
3. As per the first information report a total quantity of 20
liters of Mahua wine has been recovered from the room of the
petitioner and she managed to flee away from the place of oc-
currence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to
dirty village politics. The ‘Mahua’ wine has been recovered
from a room of the house which is a joint family property and
the same is not the residential house of the petitioner. The name
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7967 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/2
of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of
disclosure made by local Chaukidar with whom the petitioner is
having inimical terms. The Police during search and seizure did
not follow the provisions contemplated under Section 100 of the
Cr.P.C. The petitioner is a lady having no criminal antecedent.
5. Regard being had to the submissions advanced by the
parties, taking into consideration the fact that illicit ‘Mahua’
wine has been recovered from the room of the petitioner and in
view of Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2019 (Ram Vinay Yadav versus The
State of Bihar), I am not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.
6. However, if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular
bail, the concerned court may consider the prayer for bail on the
same day without being prejudiced by the fact that the present
anticipatory bail application has been rejected by this court.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…