Patna High Court
Kunti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Ownership of the vehicle from which contraband was seized does not, by itself, preclude the grant of anticipatory bail, and provisional anticipatory bail was therefore ordered subject to verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Kunti Devi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. after a seizure of 1080 kg of mahua flower from a motorcycle she owned, alleged to be in violation of Section 30(c) of the Excise Act. She argued that she was not present at the spot, had no conscious possession of the contraband, and possessed a clean antecedent, emphasizing her status as a woman. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court considered that mere ownership of the vehicle does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail and, after evaluating the petitioner's clean record, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of antecedents and compliance with bail conditions. The order directs the trial court to confirm the bail if no prior cases are found, otherwise to revoke it.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged contravention of Section 30(c) of the Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle from which the contraband was seized justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- mahua flower seizure
- clean antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- gender considerations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91511 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-747 Year-2024 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Kunti Devi W/o Dharmendra Bhuiyan R/o Village - Mai, P.S - Rafiganj,
District - Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mukul Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 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 30(c) of the Excise Act.
3. The 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 1080 kg. of mahua flower from
a motorcycle and found concealed under husk.
4. 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 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.91511 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
her own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would create
evidence against herself and hence, would get implicated. It is
also submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that they
saw a woman fleeing from the place of occurrence.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional 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 the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Rafiganj P. S. Case No.747 of 2024, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91511 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, 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)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…