← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27414/2026bail granted

Md. Kashif Khan v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-13Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27414 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Rohtas ====================================================== Md. kashif khan son of Md. Mastakim Khan, R/O Mohalla-Kila Thana Chowk, PS- Sasaram, District-Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nawaz Shareef, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Nawaz Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Official Case No. 01 of 2025 for the offence punishable under sections 18(C), 18(a), 27(b)(ii) 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 lodged on 28.12.2024 by the informant.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that while the investigation was carried out , he gave the misleading information with respect to drug license which is valid up to 09.04.2026 and further the fact was suppressed that the above license belongs to one Abhinav Kumar. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

2/4 petitioner is not the owner of the Jeeva Hospital and Emergency Care, wherefrom the seizure of medicines are said to have been made by the drug inspector. As per the official complaint, the allegation against the petitioner is that the drug inspector was provided with wrong information in respect of the drugs license which is said to have been issued in favour of the owner of the hospital on the basis of which, the drugs were kept in the said hospital. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was working as a helper in the said hospital and had no knowledge with regard to the drugs kept in the said hospital. It is further submitted that the owner of the Jeeva Hospital and Emergency Care has not been made accused in this case and the petitioner, who has no connection with the seized articles or with the hospital administration for, ulterior reasons have been implicated in this case by the Drug Inspector. The petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner was an employee of Jeeva Hospital and the allegations for which the petitioner has been roped in, the same could not have been made against this petitioner rather such allegations could have well

3/4 been fastened against the owner of the Jeeva Hospital who would be in a better position to apprise the authority with regard to the seized medicines and as also the authorities under which those medicines were kept in the said hospital and the petitioner holds the clean antecedent.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the

4/4 witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.

(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T