Bablu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43307 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Bablu Singh S/o Bhim Singh, R/o Village- Lokha, PS- Muffasil, DistBegusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. R.S. Sahay, Advocate.

Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Shaheen Begum, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No.104 of 2025 instituted under Section 30(f) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information regarding unloading of illegal Cough syrup, the police team conducted a raid to the place of occurrence and recovered 88 litre Wiscodin Cough Syrup from the pickup van and maize field. The petitioner was apprehended on spot and four co-accused persons fled away from the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is neither owner nor driver of the alleged seized vehicle and he has no concern with the maize field. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is only a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43307 of 2025(4) dt.11-09-2025 2/2 carrier of the said consignment and he has no concern with the seized material. He further submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of law in search and seizure. He further submits that that the charge-sheet had already been submitted in this case after completion of investigation. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in judicial custody since 07.05.2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is recovery of huge quantity i.e. 88 litre Codein Cough Syrup from the possession of petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering submissions made on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case and the recovery of huge quantity of Codein Cough Syrup, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Ritik/- U T