Patna High Court
Anjali Kumari @ Anjali DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bail bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Anjali Kumari and Kamini Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving multiple offences under the Bihar Penal Code and the Bihar Excise Act, alleging they have clean antecedents and were not directly involved in the alleged recovery of liquor from Bashista Ray's shop. They contended that they were implicated only to coerce their relative, Ravi Kumar, and that they were not arrested at the scene. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, ordered provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents before confirming the bail. It further warned that concealment of any antecedent would lead to denial of confirmation. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite pending charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 132, 262, 263, 352, 351(2), 191(2), 190 of the Bihar Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged involvement in the liquor recovery and alleged assistance in freeing Ravi Kumar from police custody justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482(2) CrPC
- criminal antecedent
- liquor seizure
- women
- Bihar Penal Code
- Bihar Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91817 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1052 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi Wife of Ravi Kumar Resident of Village-
Parsaunia, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali
2. Kamini Devi @ Kamini Kumari Wife of Raushan Kumar Resident of
Village- Parsaunia, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 132, 262, 263, 352, 351(2), 191(2) and 190 of BNS
and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are person with clean antecedent and are women and
allegation is of recovery of 12.09 litres of liquor from shop of
Bashista Ray.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91817 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and the alleged
recovery is from the shop of Bashista and petitioners came to be
implicated with an allegation that they along with other accused
persons freed Ravi Kumar from police custody. It is next
submitted that petitioners being related to Ravi Kumar came to
be implicated only with a view to coerce Ravi and Bashista into
submission.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their 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) each 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 Mahua
P.S. Case No. 1052 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one
case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91817 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not
be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his
criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is
found that petitioners are 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…