IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31838 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2024 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul ====================================================== 1. Meera Devi @ Mira Devi, Wife of Dip Narayan Mukhiya, Resident of village - Tamkulha, Mahulia, Police Station - Jadia, Dist- Supaul 2. Yashodha Devi @ Yashoda Devi, wife of Jay Narayan Mukhiya, Resident of village - Tamkulha, Mahulia, Police Station - Jadia, Dist- Supaul 3. Kavita Devi @ Kavita Kumari, Wife of Raja Kumar @ Raja Mukhiya, Resident of village - Tamkulha, Mahulia, Police Station - Jadia, Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 19-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In the present case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No. 246 of 2024 for the offence under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022. 3. As per prosecution case, on getting secret information about the petitioners manufacturing, storing and selling illicit liquor from their houses, a raid was conducted and recovery of 10 liters, 6 liters & 11 liters of country made liquor, was made from the respective houses of the petitioners, who were not found present in their houses. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31838 of 2025(2) dt.19-05-2025 2/2 the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution story is not believable as a raid was conducted and none of the family members was present. Moreover, all the ladies have been made accused in this case. There is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioners, who are having clean antecedent. The learned counsel further submits that the seizure memo shows the FIR number at the top and this shows seizure memo has been prepared at the police station. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. The learned APP submits that recovery has been shown from the houses of the petitioners and in the circumstances the anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. V.K.Pandey/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T