Anita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37481 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2026 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Anita Devi Wife of Birendra Manjhi Resident of village - Nonfarawa Dhangar Toli PS -Patahi District- East Champaran 2.
Bikau Manjhi Son of Suresh Manjhi Resident of village - Nonfarawa Dhangar Toli PS -Patahi District- East Champaran 3.
Sapi Devi @ Satiya Devi Wife of Binod Manjhi Resident of village - Nonfarawa Dhangar Toli PS -Patahi District- East Champaran 4.
Munna Kumar @ Munna Manjhi Son of Suresh Manjhi Resident of village - Nonfarawa Dhangar Toli PS -Patahi District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 221, 132, 324(4), 352, 190, 191, 45 of the BNS and Sections 30(a), 30(b), 30(c), 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and petitioner no.1 and 3 are women and allegation is of recovery of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37481 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026 2/3 30 litres of liquor along with 500 litres of raw liquor from house of Anita Devi and 20 litres of liquor from house of Neha. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and the house of Anita Devi is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was Anita, who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within her knowledge and Neha is not a petitioner in the anticipatory bail application. It is further submitted that as far as other persons are concerned they are alleged to have gathered at the place of occurrence and obstructed the police in discharge of their official duty but then it is submitted that allegations are general and omnibus in nature.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37481 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026 3/3 in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No.107/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of more than one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if after verification the criminal antecedent as recorded hereinabove tallies with the petitioners in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T