Patna High Court

Babita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

Summary

Babita Devi applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a case alleging offences under several IPC sections (147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 504, 353, 307) and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act. She argued that she has a clean record, was not arrested, and the alleged seizure of 42 litres of mahua occurred at a residence that does not belong to her, with the accusation stemming from a personal dispute involving her husband. The petitioner sought correction of a typographical error in the bail petition, which the court permitted. The State opposed the bail. After considering the submissions, the court directed that, if arrested or surrendered within six weeks, the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2). The application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC despite the serious offences alleged against her.
Whether the lack of arrest and the claim of no possession of the alleged contraband affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 341, 353, 504

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 438 CrPC
IPC offences
Excise Act
mahua seizure
clean antecedent
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90145 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2022 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Babita Devi W/o Maina Manjhi R/o Village - Bahadurpur Mushari, P.S -
                 Bahadurpur, District - Patna

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Jay Ram Prasad
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-01-2026                  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 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 504, 353, 307 of the I.P.C. and

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,

                   seeks permission to rectify the pleading made at Para-1 of the

                   anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that inadvertently

                   Section 804 instead of 504 of I.P.C. has been typed thus seeks

                   permission to rectify the same.

                                4. Permission is accorded.

                                5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90145 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                            2/3




          and allegation is of recovery of 42 litres of mahua from house of

          Ramkali Devi.

                       6. 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 alleged

          recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner

          and petitioner has no concern or relation with Ramkali Devi and

          she came to be implicated based on an allegation that petitioner

          along with other named accused persons created ruckus at the

          place of occurrence. It is also submitted that since husband of

          the petitioner is on an inimical term with the Chaukidar, as such,

          he implicated the petitioner with a view to coerce her husband

          into submission.

                       7. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail

          application.

                       8. 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

          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
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90145 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                                           3/3




                         the case is pending/successor Court in connection with

                         Bahadurpur P. S. Case No.431 of 2022, subject to the conditions

                         laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                                      9. The application stands allowed.


                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…