Md. Margub Alam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22710 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2025 Thana- Madhubani T District- Purnia ====================================================== Md. Margub Alam S/o Md. Sabbir Resident of Village- Parora, P.S.- K. Nagar, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2026
1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.K. Agrawal and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhubani PS Case No. 226 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 78661 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure-1, Page-10), thereafter the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 20412 of 2025 and the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 18.12.2025. It is next submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22710 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 2/3 petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026 and has antecedent of one case.
4. It is further submitted that the informant alleges that he received secret information that petitioner along with his associates have kept codeine syrup in large quantity in room no. 7 of rented lodge of Dinesh near RKK college, accordingly the informant informed his superior officer and got a Magistrate deputed and thereafter reached the place of occurrence and two persons were apprehended who disclosed their names as Rahul and Surendra, while two accused fled and 3538 bottles of codeine syrup of 100 ml each along with 66 bottles of liquor was recovered and owner of the lodge Dinesh was also not present.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and the persons who fled from the place of occurrence was not the petitioner. It is next submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner came to be implicated on the ground that the room from where codeine was recovered was rented by the petitioner and he was staying in the same room.
6. The learned APP for the State opposes the regular bail application of the petitioner and submits that from perusal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22710 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 3/3 of the order dated 03.12.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 78661 of 2025, it would manifest that the same records that petitioner has antecedent of one case under the NDPS Act, but then from perusal of Para-3 of the instant regular bail application, it would manifest that the learned counsel, though, has pleaded that petitioner has antecedent of one case, but then has not recorded the sections under which the said case was instituted and the reason is obvious for concealing that the case was under the NDPS Act. The learned APP further submits that this is the second case of the petitioner under the NDPS Act and if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
8. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T