Supree Court sets aside order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh in an excise case from Jokihat, Araria, grants bail to Shanti Devi

In Shanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan delivered a 7-page long order dated October 5, 2026, wherein, it sets aside the order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. It concluded:"Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail sought by him. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 08.04.2026. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties." 

This appeal challenged the order dated April 8, 2026 passed by Justice Singh. The criminal appeal arose in connection with the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.540 of 2022 dated October 24, 2022 registered at Police Station Jokihat (Mahalgaon), District Araria in respect of offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Anticipating arrest in connection with this crime, the appellant preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No.20016 of 2026 before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.  This application for anticipatory bail having been rejected by the High Court by impugned order dated April 8, 2026, the instant appeal was preferred. By order dated August 3, 2026, while issuing notice, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection in favour of the appellant. 

The appellant's counsel submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 03.08.2026 the appellant has been cooperating with the investigation; that other persons who are also alleged in the same FIR have been granted the relief of regular bail. The appellant is a fifty one year old lady and merely because she was the owner of the truck from which the codeine substance mixed cough syrup was seized, she has been proceeded with although she has no connection with the alleged offence. In the circumstances, this Court may set aside the impugned order and grant the relief of anticipatory bail while making the interim order absolute subject to the terms to be imposed. The standing counsel for the respondent-State with reference to the counter affidavit contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed. 

Earlier, in Shanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Singh had passed an order dated April 8, 2026, wherein, he had concluded: "6. Considering the fact that petitioner is owner of the seized vehicle, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused. The petitioner apprehended arrest in Jokihat (Mahalgaon) P. S. Case No. 540 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. As per prosecution case, 304 liters codeine mixed cough syrup was recovered from the seized vehicle of which the petitioner is  registered owner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had got no concern with the alleged recovery and she was made accused in this case only on suspicion. The petitioner had claimed clean antecedent. A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 

Supreme Court as reversed the order by Justice Singh.