Guddu Kumar @ Pranav Kumar Prabhakar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53397 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2024 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Guddu Kumar @ Pranav Kumar Prabhakar Son of Sri Shyam Yadav @ Surendra Niraj Resident of Village - Parwaha, Ward No.- 4, Police Station - Gamhariya, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aryan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2024

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gamhariya P.S. Case No.7/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of recovery of 45.7 litres of codeine cough syrup from the house of Ranjit Kumar. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and petitioner has no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53397 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 2/2 connection or relation with Ranjit and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Ranjit in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.

4. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that codeine now is being used as a substitute for liquor which is being sold at a higher rates. It is also submitted that it contains psychotropic substance and thus comes under the N.D.P.S. Act and it is more harmful for the society.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is accordingly rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T