Dilkhush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11334 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2025 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== Dilkhush Kumar Son of Saken Yadav @ Sikendra Yadav Resident of Uda Chowk, Ward No. 02, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar \ ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-04-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Udakishunganj PS Case No. 359 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 19.8 litres of codeine cough syrup from grocery shop of Bihari Kumar.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11334 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026 2/2 recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Bihari in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that of late in the State of Bihar Codeine has become a menace and young children are using the same for the purposes of intoxication. 6.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T