Sonu Singh @ Vikash Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65023 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhepura ====================================================== Sonu Singh @ Vikash Kumar Singh, S/o Sanoj Singh R/o Village- Rampa, P.S - Singheshwar, District - Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bam Bahadur Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-09-2025 Heard Mr. Bam Bahadur Jha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Madhepura Excise P.S. Case No. 51/2025 dated 21.02.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act (hereinafter referred as 'Excise Act').

3. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel are that the instant matter relates to the recovery of 38 litres of illicit cough syrup containing codeine but as per the FIR, the recovery is said to have been made from the house of co-accused Mukesh Yadav and from the entire FIR, it does not appear that the petitioner had any kind of involvement with the co-accused Mukesh Yadav and simply in the last paragraph of the FIR, the name of one Sonu Singh, showing his father's name

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65023 of 2025(2) dt.24-09-2025 2/3 as Late Nawal Kishore Singh, was added as an accused without disclosing any basis, further, the petitioner is a completely different person from the FIR-named accused Sonu Singh, as his father's name is Sanoj Singh, though the petitioner and the named Sonu Singh are residents of the same locality but the wards where their houses are situated are different and in this regard, a specific statement has been made in paragraph no. 9 of the petition, so, in light of these facts, the alleged offence in which the FIR has been registered, does not attract even prima facie against this petitioner, hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is not hit by the provisions of Section 76(2) of the Excise Act.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as considering the submissions as stated above, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65023 of 2025(2) dt.24-09-2025 3/3 satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with Madhepura Excise P.S. Case No. 51/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. (Shailendra Singh, J) maynaz/- U T