Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bhavesh PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
WITHDRAWN

Holding

The application for regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhavesh Paswan, applied for regular bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that 71 litres of codeine cough syrup were recovered from a cart parked outside his house. He argued that the seizure was not from his conscious possession and that the substance may have been concealed by a hostile party. The State opposed bail, highlighting the recent menace of codeine abuse and the petitioner’s three prior excise cases, contending he might abscond. The petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the bail application and to re‑file after charge framing. The court granted permission to withdraw the application. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 given his antecedent cases
  • Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of conscious possession of the seized codeine syrup affects bail eligibility

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • excise law
  • codeine
  • antecedent cases
  • regular bail
  • withdrawal of application

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34947 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-286 Year-2025 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Bhavesh Paswan S/o Late Mole Paswan R/o Village- Pastwar, Ward No.-01,
                 P.S.- Mahishi, 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. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   03-07-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition

                   and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and

                   is in custody since 11.03.2026 and allegation is of recovery of

                   71 litres of Codeine Cough Syrup from a cart parked in the

                   dallan of the petitioner.

                                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 the dallan is a

                   place outside the house and it appears that someone inimical to

                   the family concealed the Codeine Cough Syrup.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34947 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
                                                       2/2




                                  5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the

                     State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and

                     submits that codeine off late has become a menace. It is next

                     submitted that if the privilege of regular bail is granted to the

                     petitioner, the petitioner may abscond as he has antecedent of

                     three cases.

                                  6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

                     seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to the

                     petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

                                  7. Permission is accorded.

                                  8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as

                     withdrawn.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

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.