Ramkaliya Devi @ Fulkali Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39369 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- DARPA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Ramkaliya Devi @ Fulkali Devi W/o Late Parma Mukhiya Resident of village- Rampur (Siswaniya), P.S.- Darpa, District- East Champaran 2.

Satendra Mukhiya @ Satyendra Mukhiya S/o Meghu Mukhiya Resident of village- Rampur (Siswaniya), P.S.- Darpa, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner no. 2 has been arrested and therefore this application with regard to the aforesaid petitioner has become infructuous. Hence, he seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with regard to petitioner no. 2 namely, Satendra Mukhiya @ Satyendra Mukhiya only.

3. Permission, as prayed for, is accorded.

4. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner no. 2 namely, Satendra Mukhiya @

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39369 of 2025(2) dt.03-07-2025 2/3 Satyendra Mukhiya stands dismissed as withdrawn having become infructuous.

5. Now, the present anticipatory bail application survives only for petitioner no. 1 namely, Ramkaliya Devi @ Fulkali Devi.

6. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 30(a) and 45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

7. As per the prosecution case, 60 litres of illicit country made liquor has been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery.

9. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that 60 liters of illicit country made liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner and she has got one criminal antecedent of similar nature. He further submits that petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail in view of Full Bench decision of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39369 of 2025(2) dt.03-07-2025 3/3 this Court rendered in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089 (F.B.).

10. Considering the aforesaid decision of this Court, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.

11. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shahnawaz/- U T