Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Gita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail as the allegations do not establish a prima facie case against her.

Summary

Gita Devi, the widow of the late Sunil Nut, filed an anticipatory bail petition fearing arrest in a case registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act for alleged possession of liquor. She argued that her presence at the scene was merely as a fleeing witness and that the liquor was recovered from a road adjacent to her hut, not from her premises, and that she has no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, contending that the FIR established prima facie case. The Court examined the facts, the petitioner’s clean record, and the lack of direct involvement, and found no sufficient ground to deny bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act in the circumstances of the case
  • Whether the facts constitute a prima facie case against the petitioner under section 30(a) of the Excise Act

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • excise law
  • section 30(a)
  • women
  • criminal procedure
  • bail bond

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9123 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2026 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Gita Devi, wife of Late Sunil Nut, R/o Village - Turki Nut Toli, P.S. - Panapur,
                 Dist. - Saran.                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-02-2026                         Heard the parties.

                                   2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in

                   connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026 dated

                   08.01.2026 registered for the offence punishable under section

                   30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, (in short ‘Excise

                   Act’).

                                   3. The main submissions advanced by petitioner’s

                   counsel are that the petitioner is a lady and she has been made

                   accused in connection with the recovery of the alleged liquor

                   mainly on account of she being found in fleeing position upon

                   seeing the police party which cannot be made a ground to

                   implicate her, particularly, in respect of the recovery of the

                   alleged liquor and further, the recovery of the said liquor was

                   made from the road adjacent to the hut of the petitioner, not

                   from the petitioner’s hut. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9123 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     bears no criminal antecedent and her past history is completely

                     clean, hence, the alleged offence punishable under the Excise

                     Act, under which the FIR has been registered, does not attract

                     even prima facie against the petitioner, so, her prayer for

                     anticipatory bail is not hit by the provisions of section 76(2) of

                     the Excise Act.

                                     4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed

                     the prayer of the petitioner.

                                  5. In the facts and circumstances of this case as well

                     as considering the submissions as stated above, coupled with the

                     pleas of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of

                     anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner

                     named-above, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the

                     learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be

                     released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

                     20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the

                     like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in

                     connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026, subject to

                     the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.




                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.