Patna High Court

Niraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations were serious and the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle did not absolve him of liability.

Summary

The petitioner, Niraj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 218.8 liters of codeine from a Baleno car he owned. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, the drug was not found in his personal possession, and he was unaware that his friend Santosh misused the vehicle. The State contended that the large quantity of codeine, which also falls under the NDPS Act, made the allegations serious and warranted investigation and interrogation of the petitioner. The court examined the claim that ownership of the vehicle alone could not establish guilt and considered the seriousness of the offence. Concluding that the allegations were grave and the investigation needed, the court denied the petition for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the FIR.
Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to establish culpability.
Whether the seriousness of the alleged codeine seizure justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

Subjects

anticipatory bail
codeine
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
NDPS Act
vehicle ownership
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23068 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Niraj Kumar S/o Bhola Prasad Yadav R/o Village- Sukhasan, P.S.-
                 Singheshwar, District- Madhepura.
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                              ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 218.800 liters of codeine from a Baleno car.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized

                   vehicle, it is next submitted that no prudent person would use

                   his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would

                   create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

                   it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that

                   his friend Santosh would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23068 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     alleged who was also apprehended from the spot along with Md.

                     Moin Alam.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

                     anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that 218.800 liters

                     of codeine is alleged to have been recovered from a car which

                     owned by the petitioner. It is next submitted that codeine also

                     falls under the NDPS Act but the instant FIR has been instituted

                     under the Excise Act, it is next submitted that the allegations as

                     alleged in the FIR is serious in nature and, as such, the case

                     requires to be investigated and petitioner interrogated. It is next

                     submitted that if petitioner is innocent, the police will submit

                     final form but if petitioner is connected with the offence in that

                     event charge-sheet would be submitted.

                                  6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant the privilege

                     of provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner.



                                               (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…