Patna High Court
Mithlesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the large‑scale hemp seizure was not comparable to the earlier case and the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Mithlesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in connection with a case involving the alleged recovery of 6,000 kg of powdered hemp from a truck. He argued that he has a clean record, was not in possession of the seized goods, and merely hired the truck through his transport business, Laxmi Enterprises. The State opposed the bail, contending that the facts differ from a prior case where anticipatory bail was granted, noting the large quantity of hemp and ongoing investigation. The court examined the distinction between the petitioner’s role and that of the earlier case (Chandan) and considered the seriousness of the alleged offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Bihar Excise Act. Concluding that the petitioner’s situation did not merit the privilege of anticipatory bail, the court rejected the prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offences under Section 317(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether the facts of the petitioner’s case are sufficiently analogous to the earlier case (Chandan) where anticipatory bail was granted
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 317(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- narcotic substances
- excise law
- transport business
- seizure
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83868 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-324 Year-2024 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Mithlesh Kumar S/o Ranjit Ray R/o Village - Bajitpur Sahdat Ward no - 15,
P.S - Desari, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hemant Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Desari (Chandpura) PS Case No. 324 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Section 317(5) of BNS and Section 30(a)
of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 6000 kg of powdered hemp from a truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized truck rather petitioner is owner of Laxmi Enterprises and is
involved in transport business and hires vehicles and books the goods
and gets them delivered. It is next submitted that similarly situated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83868 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
Chandan had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Cr. Misc No. 69361 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed
by an order dated 9-10-2025 by a learned Co-ordinate Bench.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the
order dated 9-10-2025 in Cr. Misc No. 69361 of 2025, it would
manifest that the learned Co-ordinate Bench while granting
anticipatory bail to Chandan had taken note of the fact that Chandan
had provided the truck to petitioner for providing transportation, but
then was not aware what materials the petitioner would transport by
the truck which he had provided. It is thus submitted that case of the
petitioner is not similar to the case of Chandan and large amount of
hemp is alleged to have been recovered from the truck and
investigation is still continuing.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.