Savita Devi @ Sabita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45112 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- Bhelahi District- East Champaran ====================================================== Savita Devi @ sabita Devi W/o- Grahan Ram @ Jitendra Ram VillageAnandiganj Ambedkar Basti Ps- Bhelahi Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2025 Heard Mr.Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Bhelahi P.S.Case No.05 of 2025,FIR dated 12.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a)of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3.The prosecution case as per FIR, in brief, is that 60 liter raw liquor (Pass) has been recovered from the house of accused petitioner out of which one liter was seized and rest was destroyed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and she has been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that she is wife of co-

2/4 accused person, namely, Garhan Ram @ Jitendra Ram. It appears from the FIR as well as the seizure list that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the joint house property of the petitioner and petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that she is wife of co-accused person, namely, Garhan Ram @ Jitendra Ram. There is noncompliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C./Section 103 of BNSS, 2023. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for 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) PLJR 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

3/4 Counsel for the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that she is wife of co-accused person, namely, Garhan Ram and recovery has been made from the joint house property of the petitioner, 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 learned Special Judge Excise Court No.-1, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Bhelahi P.S.Case No.

05 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

4/4 (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 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/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) Nitesh/- U T