Guria Devi @ Gudia Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.631 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-402 Year-2025 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya ====================================================== Guria Devi @ Gudia Kumari W/O Om Prakash Manjhi @ Awadhesh Manjhi R/o Vill.- Dihuri, Upathu, P.O.- Atri, P.S.- Atri, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kanhiya Kishor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The 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 35 litres of liquor from the house of three accused persons out of which 15 litres of liquor is alleged to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner along with 1000 litres of jawa mahua from the house of all the accused persons, which was destroyed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.631 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/3 recovered from her conscious possession and even the house in question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within her knowledge and she came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar, but then, it is submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that Chaukidar is on an inimical term with her husband.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
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 Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on provisional anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail-bonds in the sum 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 Atri P. S. Case No.402 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.631 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026 3/3 down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed her antecedent before this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, 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) vikash/- U T