Patna High Court
Archana DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond, sureties and verification of her criminal antecedents.
Summary
Archana Devi sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 alleging recovery of 40 litres of liquor from her residence. She argued that the liquor was stored in a joint‑family house, she had no conscious possession, and the amended Act had done away with the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offence was non‑bailable. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The order further stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) CrPC/Section 482(2) BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender applies after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
- Whether the joint‑family nature of the property negates the petitioner’s knowledge and possession of the liquor.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Substance (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- joint family property
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9940 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1186 Year-2025 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Archana Devi W/o Santosh Chaudhary Resident of Village- Rani Ghat Bandh,
P.S.- Katihar Town (Sahayak), District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Musowir, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begum, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and is
a woman and allegation is of recovery of 40 litres of liquor from
the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from her conscious possession. It is further submitted
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9940 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
was within her knowledge and after amendment in the Excise
Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the local person but then the name of the person who disclosed
the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted
that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the
police start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, secret information or confessional
statement without holding a proper investigation of the case.
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, let the petitioner above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
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 Katihar Town (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 1186
of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9940 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed her
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…