IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31170 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- West Champaran ====================================================== Gita Devi Wife of Jagdish Ram Resident of Village- Ambedkar Colony, Baswariya, P.S.- Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 2 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest in connection with Bettiah Excise P.S. Case no.294 of 2018 registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. 3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information having been received and a search being conducted, 30 litres of semi fermented and 180 litres of raw material/chowa was recovered while the petitioner managed to escape. It is further stated that the accused who was apprehended disclosed her name as Parwati Devi. Besides various utensils used in the manufacture of liquor was also recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner’s Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31170 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/2 possession or his premises and he has ben falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged place of recovery. He has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the co-villagers who are on inimical terms and the petitioner is a lady and has been falsely implicated in the case because of her antecedents. 5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation of recovery of various utensils and large amount of fermented liquor in the process of manufacture of liquor together with the petitioner having antecedent of similar nature and specially in a case of the year 2018 having moved this Court for bail eight years later, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected. 7. In case the petitioner surrenders and moves for regular bail, the same shall be considered without being prejudiced by this order of rejection. sauravkrsinha/- (Partha Sarthy, J) U T