IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27630 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2025 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger ====================================================== Meena Devi @ Mina Devi Wife of Raju Soren @ Raju Murmu Resident Of Village- Barki Fulwariya PO -Haveli Kharagpur PS -Kharagpur District -Munger ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jainandra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 22-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 4 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from her conscious possession and she came to be implicated based on the fact that she is owner of the seized Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27630 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026 2/3

vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use her own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against herself and hence would get implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that her friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged, who also fled from the spot. It is also submitted that it is not a case of the prosecution that they saw a woman fleeing from the place of occurrence. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27630 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026 3/3

cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27630 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2025 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger ====================================================== Meena Devi @ Mina Devi Wife of Raju Soren @ Raju Murmu Resident Of Village- Barki Fulwariya PO -Haveli Kharagpur PS -Kharagpur District -Munger ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jainandra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 22-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 4 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from her conscious possession and she came to be implicated based on the fact that she is owner of the seized Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27630 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026 2/3

vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use her own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against herself and hence would get implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that her friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged, who also fled from the spot. It is also submitted that it is not a case of the prosecution that they saw a woman fleeing from the place of occurrence. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27630 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026 3/3

cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T