Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17346/2026allowed

Rinku Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-23Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17346 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2025 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

Rinku Devi, W/O Ratku Mahto, Resident Of Village - Ramsapur, P.SPahleja, District- Saran 2.

Raktu Mahto, S/O Ramji Mahto, Resident Of Village - Ramsapur, P.SPahleja, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Basant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankarm, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Pahleja P.S. Case No. 126 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from a Gumti situated before the house of Ramji Mahto, 35 liters of country made liquor and from the house of one Loha Mahto, one country made pistol was recovered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17346 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026 2/2 case. Petitioner no.1 is daughter-in-law of Ramji Mahto and petitioner no.2 is son of Ramji Mahto. Nothing has been recovered from their possession. It has also been submitted that petitioner no.1 is having no criminal antecedent whereas petitioner no.2 is having criminal antecedent of one case in which he is on bail. The witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel. Police has not complied Section 105 of B.N.S.S. while making the seizure. Petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 19.11.2025 and 27.11.2025 respectively.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The above named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Court, Saran at Chapra in connection with Pahleja P.S. Case No. 126 of 2025.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T