Patna High Court
Gaurishankar @ Gauri ShankarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Gaurishankar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. He was alleged to be involved in the recovery of 70.2 litres of codeine cough syrup and 32.625 litres of liquor from the residence of Gopal Prasad Singh, a person with whom he claimed no relationship. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the scene, no contraband was found in his immediate possession, and the identification documents found at the site merely implicated him. The State contended that the presence of the petitioner’s Voter ID, PAN, and Aadhaar cards at the location, coupled with the societal menace of codeine misuse, justified investigation and interrogation. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for further investigation. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
- Whether the presence of the petitioner’s identification documents at the scene suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged recovery of codeine cough syrup and liquor without the petitioner’s direct possession warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a), 41
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- codeine cough syrup
- excise law
- possession
- investigation
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29881 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2025 Thana- Balwahat District- Saharsa
======================================================
Gaurishankar @ Gauri Shankar S/o Jawahar Singh R/o vill- Sonpura, PS-
Balwahat, District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 1. 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 70.2 litres of codeine cough syrup along with
32.625 litres of liquor from the house of Gopal Prasad Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from the house of Gopal Prasad Singh with whom
petitioner has no concern or relation but then petitioner came to
be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar with whom he is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29881 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/2
on an inimical term on which learned A.P.P. submits that from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that Voter Identify Card, Pan Card and Aadhaar Card of the
petitioner was found at the place of occurrence and, thus, the
petitioner came to be implicated. Learned A.P.P. further submits
that of late codeine has become a menace in the society as
young boys of tender age are using codeine cough syrup for the
purposes of intoxication. Learned A.P.P. next submits that the
case requires to be investigated for which interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the submissions made by the
learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend
the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection
with Balwahat P.S. Case No. 172 of 2025 pending in the Court
of learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise-1, Saharsa/Successor
Court.
6. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.