Prabhawati Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65951 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2023 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Prabhawati Devi Wife of Sanjay Nut R/O-Village-Bagdiha, P.S-Panapur, Distt.-Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 182 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. Altogether 15 litres of Mahua liquor has been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no concern either with the seized liquor or the place of recovery or any trade of liquor. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65951 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 2/2 totally false and based on concocted facts. Her name has been transpired in the present case due to animosity. The house from where the alleged recovery has been made is a joint family house and the same is inhabited by several family members and therefore, petitioner had no knowledge of keeping of the said liquor in the house. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is a house wife having four children and she has no role in the alleged occurrence. She was not apprehended on the spot. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the alleged recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge her on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T