IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58827 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2026 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Neelam Devi W/O Jitendra Rajbanshi R/O Village- Bishunpur, PS- Govindpur, district- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s Versus ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 19-08-2026 Heard Ms. Sarita Kumari, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. 3. The police on a secret information conducted raid in the house of the petitioner. However, noticing the police party, the petitioner succeeded in fleeing away, who was further identified by the local Chowkidar. In course of search, total 10 litres of country made mahua liquor was recovered. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that it is very surprising that the petitioner is a lady and the alleged Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58827 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026 2/3 recovery is said to have been made from her house, which is a joint family house but none of the male members have been made accused in this case. The entire prosecution case appears to be malafide for the simple reason that witnesses are none else but the police personnels, besides there is non-compliance of the statutory prescription of Section 103(4) of the BNSS. It is also very surprising that once raid has been conducted in the house of the petitioner, there was no family members present, who have been made seizure list witness. Even if the allegation is taken to be true, the house is in possession of joint family and, as such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Moreover, the petitioner is a lady having fair antecedent undertakes that she will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the court. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the recovery from the house of the petitioner clearly bars the anticipatory bail in view of Section 76(2) of the Excise Act. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and taking note of non compliance of statutory prescription, besides the petitioner is a lady having fair antecedent and the alleged recovery has been made from a joint family house as also lack of materials which Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58827 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026 3/3 attract the rigors to maintain the anticipatory bail, let the petitioner abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Court-1, Nawada in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2026, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner. Anjani/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T