Patna High Court
Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted conditionally despite the alleged offence, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Sunita Devi applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 85 litres of liquor from her residence. The petitioner argued that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the liquor was found in a joint family house, not in her conscious possession. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offence warranted detention. The Court noted that the amendment to the Excise Act had done away with the concept of deemed possession and that the allegation was based on secret information without proper investigation. Accordingly, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds and two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify her antecedent before confirming the bail. If any antecedent is discovered, the provisional bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act where the alleged liquor was found in a joint family house and not in the petitioner’s conscious possession.
- Whether the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the grant of 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
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83225 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-583 Year-2025 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Sunita Devi W/O Late Rajgir Chaudhary R/O Village- Dariyapur, P.S-
Dariyapur, Distt.- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rana Randhir Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 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 85 litres of liquor from house of
the petitioner.
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 even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83225 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and he came to be implicated based on secret
information, which is the easiest way to implicate someone
without holding a proper investigation.
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
Dariyapur P. S. Case No.583 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.83225 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
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 his 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…