Sunita Devi @ Sonita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4474 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2025 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sunita Devi @ Sonita Devi W/O Gudul Chaudhari R/O Village - Shivpur ( Dakshin Baraon), P.S- Nokha, Dist.- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akbar Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2026

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 Sections 30(a)(b)(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 23 litres of liquor from the house of Guddul Chaudhary and 10 litres of liquor from the house of Nageshwar Chaudhary.

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 wife of Guddul

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4474 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026 2/3 Chaudhary. It is submitted that even the house in question is a joint family property and thus, 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 was within her knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and she came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom her husband is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that in order to coerce her husband into submission the chaukidar falsely implicated the petitioner, when admittedly petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

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 Nokha P. S. Case No.476 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4474 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026 3/3 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 anticipatory bail had concealed her 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