Patna High Court
Ramkali Devi @ Raj Kumari DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the absence of direct incriminating material against the petitioner and the joint ownership of the premises outweighed her prior criminal antecedents, justifying the grant of bail with conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramkali Devi, sought bail in a case under Sections 30(a), 38 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 53 litres of liquor recovered from a hut jointly owned by her family. The prosecution argued that the liquor was found at the premises and that the petitioner had twenty prior criminal antecedents, while the defence contended that no incriminating material was found in her personal possession and she was falsely implicated. The court noted the absence of direct evidence against her, the joint ownership of the property, and considered her antecedents and period of custody. It concluded that bail could be granted subject to strict conditions, including surety, appearance requirements, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or leaving jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court ordered her release on bail upon furnishing a Rs.15,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting bail to a person accused under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act with prior criminal antecedents?
- Whether the lack of incriminating material in the petitioner’s personal possession justifies bail despite recovery of liquor from a jointly owned hut?
- Whether compliance with Section 103 of the BNSS, 2023 is a prerequisite for bail in this case?
Subjects
- bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- joint property
- Section 103 BNSS 2023
- conditions of bail
- Indian criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90232 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2018 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Ramkali Devi @ Raj Kumari Devi W/o Late- Raju Manjhi @ Rajkiran
Manjhi R/o Mohalla- Musahri, P.S- Bahadurpur, Dist- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Bahadurpur PS Case No. 45 of 2018 instituted for the offences
under Section/s 30(a), 38 & 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that 53 liters
liquor was recovered from the hut of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got
no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. It is submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90232 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
that recovery is made from hut, which is joint property of the
family of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since
28.04.2025 and has got twenty (20) criminal antecedent/s. There
is no compliance of Section 103 of the BNSS, 2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, clean antecedent of the petitioner and the period of
custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing
of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court
in connection with Bahadurpur PS Case No. 45 of 2018, subject
to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90232 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses of the case by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses,
during the investigation or trial, in that case, prosecution will be
at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(IV) If the petitioner is found indulged in any criminal
activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail,
the prosecution will be at liberty to file an appropriate
application before the court below for cancellation of his bail.
(V) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court below without its prior permission.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…