Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65760/2025bail rejected

Purushottam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-19Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65760 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Purushottam Kumar S/o Late Vijay Bhagat R/o Ward no. 01, Saur Bazar, P.S.- Saur Bazar, Distt. - Saharsa, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kanhiya Kishor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No.98/2025, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 5 litres of Codeine cough syrup. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated at the instance of local person but then the name of person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65760 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026 2/2

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is of recovery of Codeine cough syrup from the house of the petitioner. It is also submitted that Codeine comes under the NDPS Act also but then it appears that inadvertently the case has been instituted under the Excise Act.

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 rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T