Rangila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 04.05.2026 in connection with Sonepur Excise P.S. Case No. 29 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 03.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶17

Recovery is of 32.400 liters of illicit foreign liquor.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that altogether 32.400 liters of illicit liquor has been recovered from the conscious possession of the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40079 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/3

¶20

petitioner as well as other accused persons. It appears from the seizure list that the seizure list witnesses are police personnel, so there is non-compliance of Section 103 and 105 of BNSS. The petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2026.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the FIR that the recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one of similar nature but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matter.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 3^rd Exclusive Special Excise Court, Saran (Chapra) in connection with Sonepur Excise P.S. Case No. 29 of 2026, subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40079 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 3/3

¶25

on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶26

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶27

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶28

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶29

Vanisha/-

¶30

U T

Rangila Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangila 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

Md. Tamil Raza Vs The State of Bihar

Raushan @ Rocky Kumar @ Rocky Vs The State of Bihar

Suggan Harijan Vs The State of Bihar

Hariom Sharraf Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shahrukh Vs The State of Bihar

Shahid Ali Vs The State of Bihar