Arabiya Devi @ Arago Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46813 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2022 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran ====================================================== Arabiya Devi @ Arago Devi W/o Late Surendra Manjhi R/o Vill- Salempur, P.S.- Rivilganj, Distt- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2025 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022, F.I.R dated 15.03.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 140 liters of country made liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. Her name has been transpired on the basis of the disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused, namely, Ajit Rai. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

2/4 possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the motorcycle in question and petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the motorcycle in question and she has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor or the motorcycle in question. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C / Section 103 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts that nothing has

3/4 been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, her name has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused and the petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Exclusive Excise II, Saran at Chapra in connection with Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i.

Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall

4/4 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T