Patna High Court
Tahseen HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
Petitioner Tahseen Hussain sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018, alleging the recovery of 110 litres of codeine cough syrup from a vehicle. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no prior criminal record, and that the seizure was based merely on his shop's name and tag on the carton, not on any personal possession. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the large quantity of a narcotic substance and noting that the investigation was ongoing, though the FIR did not invoke the NDPS Act. The Court examined the submissions, noted the seriousness of the alleged offence and the procedural lapse in the FIR, and declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected and the order was communicated to the Superintendent of Police.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 in view of the alleged seizure of 110 litres of codeine cough syrup.
- Whether the presence of the petitioner’s shop name on the seized carton suffices to establish his culpability.
- Whether the failure to register the FIR under the NDPS Act affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- codeine cough syrup
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- NDPS Act
- seizure
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58376 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-918 Year-2023 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Tahseen Hussain S/o Md. Hussain R/o Mohalla- Larkania Tola, Katihar PS-
Nagar, Distt- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rana Hason, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 1. Heard learned Senior 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, 2018.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the case was taken up on 22.09.2025 when the case diary
was called for but the same till date has not been received.
4. The Court will not wait endlessly for the case diary.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 110 litres of codeine cough syrup from a Toto.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58376 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the
owner of the seized vehicle. It is further submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated based on the fact that the carton
from which codeine cough syrup was recovered bore the name
and tag of the shop of the petitioner. It is next submitted that
merely because the name and tag was pasted on the carton that
in itself does not make the petitioner an offender merely for the
reason that he has a medicine shop.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner
may not have been apprehended from the spot but then
allegation is of recovery of 110 litres of codeine cough syrup
and on the carton the name and tag of the shop of the petitioner
was pasted and the investigation in the case is continuing. It is
further submitted that the codeine cough syrup comes under the
category of NDPS but then it appears that inadvertently the
police while instituting the case did not institute the FIR under
the relevant sections of the NDPS Act.
8. Considering 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
Nagar P.S. Case No. 918 of 2023 pending in the Court of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58376 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
learned Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Katihar/Successor
Court.
9. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
concerned Superintendent of Police for his perusal.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…