Sunita Devi @ Gorki Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39587 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2024 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sunita Devi @ Gorki Devi, W/o Yogendra Manjhi R/O Vill.- Dhani Biha, P.S.- Chandauti, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the allegation is of recovery of 19 litres of liquor from his house.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39587 of 2024(2) dt.20-06-2024 2/3 submitted that even the house, which is a joint family property and thus, it 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 his knowledge. It is also submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which cast an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application.

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 Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise-IV, Gaya in connection with Chandauti P. S. Case No.71 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. The application stands allowed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39587 of 2024(2) dt.20-06-2024 3/3

8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event, the present anticipatory bail application shall not be given effect to.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T