Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66598 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2021 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sunita Devi W/o Late Rambrichh Chaudhary @ Rambrichh Chaurdhari R/o Village - Deurwa, P.S - Lauriya, District - West Champaran ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 328, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 30(a), 33 and 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition Act.

3. As per prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons used to sell country made liquor. Further the allegation in the FIR is that on 12.7.2021, informant's brother as also some of the villagers including Bikau Ansari, Mumtaz Ansari and Bhagwan Panda had consumed said country made liquor being sold by the aforesaid accused persons. Subsequently, after consuming the said liquor, it is alleged that Bikau Ansari, Bhagwan Panda and the brother of the informant died whereas Mumtaz Ansari became seriously ill and was being hospitalized. Informant has alleged that due to spurious country made liquor being sold by these accused persons, three

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66598 of 2025(3) dt.04-11-2025 2/2 persons died.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner claims clean antecedent. Charge sheet has already been filed. Co-accused, with similar allegation, has already been allowed pre-arrest bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide paragraph 17 of the bail petition. Petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2024.

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

6. Considering the nature of accusation and period of custody of the petitioner, his prayer for regular bail is allowed. Let the petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Exclusive Special Judge Excise II, Bettiah, West Champaran in Lauriya Police Station Case No. 165 of 2021.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U t