Sangita Chaudhary @ Sangita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabia Gulnaz, Adv. For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 18-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 262, 263 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 30 (a), 45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

¶14

From a perusal of the FIR as also the seizure list, it would appear that 20 litres of country made mahua liquor was recovered from a bag in the market place and it has been alleged in the FIR that one Pintu Chaudhary (petitioner no.2) had thrown the same from the motorcycle and made an escape.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5644 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2025 2/3

¶17

allegations made against the petitioners in the FIR are not correct and the name of petitioner no.2 has been taken by the local chowkidar only on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery has been made from the physical and conscious possession of the petitioners and the process of search and seizure is also in violation of Section 103 of BNSS as there is no independent witness to the seizure list. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 is the wife of petitioner no.2 and although she has no criminal antecedent, she has been made an accused in the present case.

¶18

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, besides others, on the ground that petitioner no.2 has three criminal antecedents to which learned counsel for the petitioners replies that out of three, only one case is of the same nature and petitioner no.2 is on bail in all the three cases.

¶19

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly that there is no recovery from physical and conscious possession of the petitioners, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5644 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2025 3/3

¶21

on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Gaya in connection with Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 284 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023.

¶22

The learned Court below is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners are involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para 3 of the bail application, this order will automatically loose its force.

¶23

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶24

divyanshi/-

¶25

U T

Sangita Chaudhary @ Sangita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Chaudhary @ Sangita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Basudev Bhuiyan @ Vasudev Bhuiyan Vs The State of Bihar

Subodh Kumar Das @ Subodh Das Vs The State of Bihar

Biru Baitha Vs The State of Bihar

Amrudhi Paswan @ Anrudh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Shri Kishun Ram @ Shri Krishan Ram @ Shri Kishun Paswan Ram @ Sri Kishun Paswan Vs The State of Bihar