Shiv Kumari DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84160 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- Shahartelpa P.S. District- Arwal
                 ======================================================
                 Shiv Kumari Devi Wife of Ganga Ram Mahto R/O Village- Radhe Nagar,
                 P.S.- Shahartelpa, Distt.- Arwal

                                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar Patna

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr.Paras Nath
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr.Madan Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-02-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.     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 22 litres of liquor from the house of

                   the petitioner and 15 litres of liquor from the straw house of

                   Durga Kumar.

                             4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from her conscious possession and after 2018

                   amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84160 of 2025(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                            2/3




          and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next

          submitted that the house in question is a joint family property as

          such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner

          who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the

          house was within knowledge of the petitioner. It is further

          submitted that she came to be implicated based on secret

          information which is the easiest way to implicate someone

          without holding a proper investigation when petitioner

          admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.

                   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, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of her arrest or surrender 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 Shahartelpa P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025, subject

          to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

          BNSS.

                   7.     It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84160 of 2025(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

                        then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

                        seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed her antecedent before this

                        Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

                        confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Sumit/-

U         T