Soni Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27125 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-672 Year-2021 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== Soni Devi W/O Mithun Manjhi Resident of Beside Railway Line Mushari, P.S- Digha, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2026

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(b), 30(c) and 32(iii) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 34 liters of liquor from house of four different accused persons including the petitioner as detailed in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from her conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27125 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026 2/3 with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his 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 he came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has not been implicated based on secret information.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her 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. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Digha P.S. Case No. 672 of 2021 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27125 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026 3/3 Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T