Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84982 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2025 Thana- GURUA District- Gaya ====================================================== Sunita Devi W/o- Samful Mandal @ Bholi @ Sambhu Mandal @ Bholi Mandal Resident of Village- Rajan, P.S.- Gurua, District- Gaya, ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 19 litres of liquor from the house of four different persons out of which 4 litres of liquor is alleged to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from her conscious possession and after 2018 amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84982 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026 2/3 and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next submitted that the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge of the petitioner and she came to be implicated at the instance of local people, but then the name of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Gurua P.S. Case No. 359 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84982 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026 3/3 7.

It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed her antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T