Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52600/2026bail rejected

Raj Kumar @ Baliya v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-29Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52600 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2026 Thana- Baijnathpur District- Saharsa ====================================================== Raj Kumar @ Baliya son of Late Bechan yadav Resident of village- Rampur, ward no 3, PS -Baijnathpur, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rashmi Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Baijnathpur P.s. Case No.36 of 2026, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 8.4 litres of codeine cough syrup from a motorcycle.

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 is not the owner of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Guddu and Mithilesh in police

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52600 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/2 custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is of recovery of codeine cough syrup. It is further submitted that of late in the State of Bihar children of impressionable age are using codeine for the purposes of intoxication and syrup has created havoc and investigation in the case is continuing.

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