Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.

Summary

Manoj Kumar, owner of a godown, was arrested on 14 January 2026 after a seizure of 1,491 litres of codeine cough syrup in connection with FIR dated 13 January 2026 under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He applied for bail, asserting a clean criminal record and arguing that his only alleged involvement was ownership of the premises, not the illegal possession. The State opposed bail, citing non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS, 2023. The Court examined the facts, noted the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and considered the statutory provisions, ultimately granting bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposing conditions regarding trial cooperation, evidence tampering, and verification of antecedents. The order directs that bail shall not be delayed for antecedent verification and sets out consequences for breach of conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite alleged non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS, 2023.
  • Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the godown alone suffices to justify continued detention under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • codeine cough syrup
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • BNSS 2023
  • criminal antecedent
  • seizure
  • non‑compliance

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17707 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2026 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Manoj Kumar Son of Late Mohan Prasad Resident of Village - Pakki Goraiya,
                 Mahavir Sthan, P.S.- Khajekalan, P.O.- Patna City, District - Patna.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Ashutosh Nath, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms.Anita Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-03-2026                  Heard Mr.Ashutosh Nath, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Ms.Anita Kumari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   14.01.2026 in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 40 of

                   2026, F.I.R. dated 13.01.2026 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   Act.

                                3. Recovery is of 1491 liters of Codeine Cough Syrup.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                   submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. It appears from

                   the FIR as well as the seizure list that the recovery has been

                   made form the Godown in question. It appears from the FIR that

                   700 liters of codeine cough syrup has been recovered from the

                   Tempo in question and 791 litres of codeine cough syrup has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17707 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
                                            2/3




          been recovered from the Godown in question and the petitioner

          has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground

          that the petitioner is owner of the Godown in question and there

          is non-compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of BNSS, 2023 and

          the petitioner is in custody since 14.01.2026.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer

          for bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean

          antecedent and there is non-compliance of Sections 103 and 105

          of BNSS, 2023, let the petitioner, above named, be released on

          bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned Exclusive Special Court-Excise, Patna City, Patna in

          connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2026, with the

          following conditions:-

                       (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and

          on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                       (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17707 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         for cancellation of bail.

                                      (III) And, further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.