Patna High Court
Rampari DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is allowed, granting provisional bail subject to conditions.
Summary
Rampari Devi and Mahesh Paswan applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging possession of 52 litres of liquor under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act. They argued they have clean antecedents, were not arrested at the scene, and the liquor was found in a joint family house, making it uncertain that they had knowledge or control over it. The prosecution opposed the bail, but the court noted the lack of conscious possession and the chaukidar's failure to inform police earlier. The court directed that, upon surrender within six weeks, the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties each, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions. The order also stipulated verification of antecedents, with confirmation of bail if they are clean, otherwise the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438(2) of the CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged possession of liquor can be attributed to the petitioners given the joint family property context.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- liquor possession
- clean antecedent
- joint family property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83649 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-316 Year-2025 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Rampari Devi W/O Mahesh Paswan R/O Village- Balha, P.S- Bibhutipur,
Distt.- Samastipur.
2. Mahesh Paswan S/O Prabhu Paswan R/O Village- Balha, P.S- Bibhutipur,
Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean and petitioner no.1 is a
woman antecedent and the allegation is of recovery of 52 litres
of liquor from the house of petitioners
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even the house in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83649 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it were the petitioners, who had kept the
liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within
their knowledge. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was
aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence,
then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the
present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each 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 Bibhutipur P. S. Case No.316 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83649 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case,
then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…