Bindu Devi @ Lalmuni Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15734 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2024 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== BINDU DEVI @ LALMUNI DEVI W/o- Late Binod Mahto Resident of village- Sareya Briti Dhangar Toli PS- Paharpur District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026
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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 30(c), 41(1), 52 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (amended upto-date) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 30 litres of liquor along with 3900 kilograms of Jaggery solution from six different places as alleged in the FIR and 5.5 litres of liquor from house of the petitioner and 4000 litres of Mahua pass from an orchard, which was destroyed at the spot. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15734 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026 2/3 her conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from places which does not belong to the petitioner and the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was 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 in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and she came to be implicated based on secret information which is the easiest way to implicate someone without holding a proper investigation, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Paharpur P.S. Case No.476/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15734 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026 3/3
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed her antecedent before this court, as such, the 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) amit/- U T