Patna High Court

Ragini DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of her antecedents.

Summary

Ragini Devi, owner of a Tata Punch, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 after 1.050 litres of liquor were recovered from her vehicle. She was not arrested at the scene and the liquor was not found in her personal possession; the prosecution alleged that a person named Kundan, who was arrested, misused the vehicle. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Prashant Kumar, argued that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and cannot be presumed guilty merely for owning the vehicle. The State, through Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, opposed anticipatory bail. The Court, considering the facts and the petitioner’s clean record, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond and sureties, and directed the trial court to verify her antecedents before confirming the bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
Whether ownership of the vehicle from which liquor was recovered is sufficient grounds for arrest and denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
liquor seizure
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Section 30(a)
Section 482(2)

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91711 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
                 Ragini Devi W/O Anjani Kumar Singh R/O Vill-Majilis Madho Urf
                 Chhapra,P.O-Rampur Hari, P.S-Rampur Hari, Dist. -Muzaffarpur

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Prashant Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-01-2026                  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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and

                   allegation is of recovery of 1.050 litres of liquor from a Tata

                   Punch Car. It is next submitted 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 her own vehicle for committing an

                   occurrence and thus would create evidence against herself and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91711 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/3




          hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that the

          petitioner was completely unaware that Kundan would misuse

          his vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended

          from the spot along with five other accused.

                       4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       5. 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 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

          Singhwara P.S. Case No.230/2025, subject to the conditions as

          laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter

          shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one

          case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had

          concealed her antecedent before this court, as such, the

          provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91711 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                       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)
amit/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…