Manorama Devi @ Manorma Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18881 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2025 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== Manorama Devi @ Manorma Devi W/O Late Bhuna Singh @ Satendra Singh R/O Village- Thakurbari Road, Sahpur, P.S- Town, Distt.- Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2025 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ganesh Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 29.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 352, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 and Sections 30(a) and 45 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.
3. According to prosecution case, total 23.7 liters country made liquor has been recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18881 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 2/3 the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R and the seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has obstructed the official duty of the informant. Apart from that the recovery has been made from the outside of the house of the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner was arrested in the present occurrence.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts that the petitioner has clean antecedent and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 01, Aurangabad in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18881 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 3/3 the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U T