Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30422 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2025 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Kumar S/O Vidyanand R/O Vill.- Bhawanandpur, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Udakishunganj, Dist.- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramesh Chandra, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026

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

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 146.80 litres of codeine cough syrup from the house of Rita Devi.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged recovery is from a house which does not belong to the petitioner and he has no concern or relation with Rita Devi but then he came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of Rita Devi

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30422 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026 2/2 in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law and is in custody since 07.04.2026.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is of recovery of 146.80 litres of codeine cough syrup. It is further submitted that of late codeine in the State of Bihar has become a menon as the young children are using it for the purposes of intoxication. It is next submitted that if the privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 180 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-V-cumSpecial Judge, Excise-I, Madhepura/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T