Maina Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10226 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-577 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Maina Devi Son of Jaleshwar Manjhi R/o Village - Mira Musehari, P.S - Muffasil, District - Saran at Chapra.
2.
Radhika Devi Son of Yogendra Manjhi R/o Village - Mira Musehari, P.S - Muffasil, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2026
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 Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and both the petitioners are women and allegation is of recovery of 12 liters of liquor from house of petitioner no. 1 and 9.5 liters of liquor from house of petitioner no. 2 along with 95 liters of liquor from house of Rajendra Manjhi.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10226 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were petitioners who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within their 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 and they came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when admittedly petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent.
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. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10226 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026 3/3 where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 577 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under 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 petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of even one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than two cases then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of two cases only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T