Patna High CourtCR. MISC./91809/2025bail rejected

Angad Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-01Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91809 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2025 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Angad Kumar Mahto son of Ram Prakash Mahto Resident of Ismayeel Ganj, Light House, P.S. -Laheriasarai, Dist.- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjiv Sharan, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case no.320 of 2025 registered under sections 21C and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. As per the prosecution case, on having received secret information a raid being conducted at the petitioner's residence. It is stated that 3410 bottles of Codeine cough syrup, 23,250 tablets of Anxit 0.5, 20 packets of Ketamine Hydrochloride Injection, 1200 vials of Tazowin Pentazocine Injection and 12 bottles of IMFL containing 750 ml each was recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91809 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Even as per the allegations, the articles received contained Codeine much below the commercial quantity. In fact, no incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner's possession. The petitioner is in custody since 3.7.2025 and has been falsely implicated because of his antecedents. He has no antecedent under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 nor under the N.D.P.S. Act.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR together with the nature and quantity of articles recovered as described herein above, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T