Patna High Court
Sabita Devi @ Savita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the FIR allegations do not constitute an offence under the Act and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Summary
Sabita Devi sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after a police raid recovered mahua liquor from her residence. She argued that the liquor was joint property, she had no criminal antecedent and nothing was in her personal possession. The State opposed, citing the seizure from her house. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out, the Court granted her anticipatory bail with strict conditions. The order also stipulated that the bail would be void if a criminal antecedent is later discovered. The bail bond was set at Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with procedural conditions was mandated.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not establish an offence?
- Whether the petitioner, as a housewife with joint ownership, can be held liable for the seized liquor.
- Whether the allegations under sections 30(a) and 41 of the Act constitute a cognizable offence in the present facts.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- seizure of liquor
- joint property
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8692 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-409 Year-2025 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
Sabita Devi @ Savita Devi W/o- Kartik Manjhi @ Jitu Manjhi T/v- Kachna,
Ps- Pakribarawan, Dist- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akbar Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 409 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act lodged on 16.10.2025 by the informant, Abhishek
Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police, on secret
information, raided the house and there is recovery/seizure of 5
liters of country-made mahua and 120 liters of fermented mahua
near the sand outside the house. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a
joint property, she being a house-wife has unnecessary been
implicated and has no criminal antecedent.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8692 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the
case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2)
PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an application for
anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar Excise and
Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section
76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no
offence under the said provision is made out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
number of houses were raided, petitioner’s house included and
there is recovery from her house.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that she is a lady having no criminal antecedent and nothing
has been recovered from her conscious possession, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend her the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the statement
made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal antecedent, the
present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt
of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8692 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 1, Nawada in
connection with Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 409 of 2025 subject
to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…