Lalpari Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18869 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- EXCISE ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Lalpari Devi W/o Chandeshwar Paswan R/o Village- Kalabanzar, Ward No. 1, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mobassar Ali, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2025 Heard Mr. Mobassar Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, F.I.R dated 07.02.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Allegation is of selling illicit liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R and seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of
2/4 the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the construction house of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the house in question, the house in question is the joint house property of the petitioner and she has no concerned with the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has clean antecedent. The petitioner is not exclusive owner of the aforesaid house, let the petitioner, above named, in
3/4 the event of her 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 Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Act Court No. 2, Samastipur in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 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 her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her 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 her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 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