Savitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9085 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- BALUA BAZAR District- Supaul ====================================================== Savitri Devi, Wife of Chandeshwar Ram, Resident of Village - Vayasi Ward No.- 14, P.S.- Karjain, District - Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Balua Bazar P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025 registered for the offence punishable under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 (in short 'Excise Act').

3. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel are that as per the prosecution story, one motorcycle was suspected to be involved in trafficking of illicit liquor and one only person was riding on the said motorcycle, who managed to escape on seeing the police party, leaving the motorcycle (Bajaj Pulsor) at Balua Bazar and upon searching the seat of the said motorcycle, a total 52.800 litres of country made Nepali liquor was recovered. It is further submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9085 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026 2/3 the petitioner is a lady and she has been made accused in the present matter mainly on account of she being the registered owner of the seized motorcycle, no doubt the same belongs to the petitioner but the alleged trafficking of liquor was made without her knowledge and she bears no criminal antecedent and her past history is completely clean, hence, the alleged offence punishable under the Excise Act, under which the FIR has been registered, does not attract even prima facie against the petitioner, so, her prayer for anticipatory bail is not hit by the provisions of section 76(2) of the Excise Act.

4. Though learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner but fairly accepts that the petitioner has been made accused in the present matter mainly on account of she being the registered owner of the seized motorcycle.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case as well as considering the submissions as stated above, coupled with the pleas of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9085 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026 3/3 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with Balua Bazar P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T