Patna High Court
Jyotish Kumar @ BhuyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Jyotish Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 12 litres of codeine cough‑syrup and a motorcycle. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot, the seized items were not in his conscious possession, and the informant’s name was omitted from the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of codeine misuse among children and the need to curb its supply. After considering the submissions, the Court declined to extend anticipatory bail, finding the grounds insufficient. Consequently, the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act given the alleged recovery of codeine cough‑syrup and a motorcycle.
- Whether the absence of arrest at the spot and the omission of the informant’s name from the FIR justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- codeine cough syrup
- drug misuse
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38521 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-490 Year-2026 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Jyotish Kumar @ Bhuya S/O Shambhu Mandal R/O Vill.- Ghailarh, ward no.
02, P.S.- Ghailarh, Dist.- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 12 litres of liquor of codeine
cough syrup from a place near a bamboo orchard along with a
motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized motorcycle and he came to be implicated at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38521 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/2
instance of local person, but the name of the person, who
disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R.,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that allegation is of recovery of
codeine cough syrup. It is next submitted that off late in the
State of Bihar, codeine is being misused by young children for
intoxication. It is also submitted that if supply of codeine is not
contained by the police perhaps a time would come when an
entire generation of young children would get destroyed.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.