Patna High Court
Sangita Devi @ Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of her antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sangita Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging possession of 30 litres of liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. She argued she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the liquor was found in a joint family house, not in her conscious possession, contending that the concept of deemed possession was abolished after the 2018 amendment. She further claimed the allegation was false and motivated by a personal dispute between her husband and the watchman who implicated her. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, sureties, and verification of her antecedent, with the order to be confirmed if she is found to have a clean record.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act in 2018 eliminating the concept of deemed possession affects the applicability of the charge to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession of liquor
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87322 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2025 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Sangita Devi @ Sunita Devi Son of Late Naresh Uraon Resident of
Kumaripur, Ward No. 4, P.S. - Manihari, Dist. - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 30 litres of liquor from the house of
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from her conscious possession. It is further submitted
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87322 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
was within her knowledge and after amendment in the Excise
Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the Chawkidar with whom the husband of the petitioner is on an
inimical term. It is also submitted that in order to coerce the
husband of the petitioner into the submission, the Chawkidar
falsely implicated the petitioner.
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, let the petitioner above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
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 Manihari
P.S. Case No. 249 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87322 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioner had concealed her antecedent
before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…