Patna High Court
Renu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted pending verification of antecedent, as mere ownership of the vehicle does not, by itself, constitute culpability.
Summary
Renu Devi, the owner of a motorcycle from which 37.200 litres of liquor was seized, feared arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. She argued that she had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not present at the spot, and was unaware that Nand Kishore Thakur would misuse her vehicle. The petitioner, described as having a clean antecedent, sought anticipatory bail, while the State opposed the relief. The court considered the ownership of the vehicle and the lack of direct involvement, and granted a provisional anticipatory bail order subject to a modest bond and two sureties. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with confirmation of bail if she is found to have no prior cases, and revocation if any antecedent is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether ownership of a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under the Bihar Excise Act suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession justify the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90661 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2022 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Renu Devi Wife of Binay Bharti Resident of Village - Nayachak Makhna,
P.S.- Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sangeeta Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 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 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 37.200 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle.
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 she came to be
implicated based on the fact that she is owner of the seized
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90661 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
her own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
create evidence against herself and hence would get implicated,
it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that Nand Kishore Thakur would misuse the vehicle in the
manner as alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot
along with Durgesh.
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 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
Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022, 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90661 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
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
Checking your session…