Fuljhari Devi @ Sarswati Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30644 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-606 Year-2025 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Fuljhari Devi @ Sarswati Devi Wife of Bhola Ram Resident of village - Bijulpur, Ps- Turkauliya, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026

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 274 and 274 of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is woman and allegation is of recovery of 100 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from her conscious possession. It is further submitted that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30644 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within her knowledge. It is next submitted that after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It is also submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the local person but then it is submitted that it does not appear probable that local person would have known who had concealed the liquor in the house.

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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of her 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 Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 606 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30644 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 3/3 Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed her antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T