Bijendar Kumar @ Bijendra Kumar @ Bijendra Rajak v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27617 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2026 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa ====================================================== Bijendar Kumar @ Bijendra Kumar @ Bijendra Rajak S/o Dinesh Rajak R/o Village - Baluaha Ward No. 15, P.S - Mahishi, District - Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amarnath Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahishi P.S. Case No.45 of 2026, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 13.5 litres of wiscof cough syrup from the house of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot and he came to be implicated at the instance of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27617 of 2026(4) dt.09-07-2026 2/2 local person.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that cough syrup was seized from the house of petitioner and petitioner has not disputed that the house does not belong to him. It is next submitted that cough syrup is being used by the children of impressionable age for the purpose of intoxication and thus is a menace for the society.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T