Patna High Court
Margub @ Md. Margub AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the prosecution failed to establish his direct involvement in the NDPS offence.
Summary
Petitioner Margub Alam, owner of a medical shop, was implicated in a NDNDPS case after a seized motorcycle rider claimed the seized codeine syrup was purchased from his shop. No contraband was found in the petitioner's possession and no documentary evidence linked him to the seizure. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, arguing lack of direct involvement. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the facts and the absence of incriminating material against the petitioner, granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions, including surety, personal appearance, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the mere allegation that the seized narcotic was purchased from the petitioner's shop suffices to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(c), 25, 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- codeine syrup
- medical shop
- Section 438 CrPC
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82076 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-347 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
======================================================
Margub @ Md. Margub Alam S/O Md. Sabbir Husband of Owner of Anaya
Medical Hall, Resident of Village- Pipra, Bishanpur Parora @ Parora, P.S.-
K.Nagar, District - Purnea at Present near the gate of R.K.K.College
Madhubani, P.S.-Madhubani, District-Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
K.Hat P.S. Case No. 347 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the police during
patrolling apprehended one person riding a motorcycle and upon
search recovered a total of 72 bottles of 100 ml containing
Triprolidine Hydrocloride & Codeine Phosphate Syrup and
BLUREX-T, batch no. TBHY0180, Mfg-07/25, total 7.200 liters
was seized.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82076 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated merely
because the apprehended accused person disclosed that the
seized material was purchased from the medical shop of the
petitioner. It has been submitted that no incriminating article has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner
and that no document pertaining to the said seizure was
recovered either from the apprehended accused person or from
the shop of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the
petitioner has a medical shop and has no concern whatsoever
with the recovered material. It has further been submitted that
subsequent to the present F.I.R., the petitioner has also been
implicated in another case being Madhubani PS Case No. 226 of
2025 which was lodged after the present F.I.R. It has lastly been
submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with
the seized material and has no connection with the apprehended
accused person.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82076 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with K.Hat P.S. Case No.
347 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82076 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…