Savitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39070 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2026 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Savitri Devi W/o Late Jagat Lal Saday R/o Vill-Bariyahi,P.S-Narhaiya, DisttMadhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 17-06-2026 Heard Ms. Anjali Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026 for the offence under sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the BNS and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on 07.03.2026 by the informant, Anand Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police, on secret information, intercepted a motorcycle and there is recovery/seizure of 8.4 liters of Nepali country made Karnali Gold wine. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she do not have any criminal antecedent and recovery/seizure is from one Deepak Kumar Saday who is his nephew and only
2/4 because she owns the motorcycle got implicated.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that she owns the motorcycle.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as also that she do not have any criminal antecedent and the petitioner is a lady, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend her the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
3/4 receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, (Excise), Jhanjarpur, Madhubani in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026 subject to the following conditions: (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police Station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of her bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of her bail bonds.
4/4
10. Before parting, this Court would like to put on record its word of appreciation for Ms. Anjali Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner for the proper assistance rendered in the matter.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T