Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mithilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to bond and surety conditions.

Summary

Mithilesh Kumar was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 209 litres of codeine cough syrup from a vehicle. The petitioner contended that he was neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle, that no incriminating material was found in his personal possession, and that he was falsely implicated, despite having three prior criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, relying on a 2016 Gazette notification that treats codeine as an intoxicant under the Act and argued that the charge warranted continued custody. The Court observed that the NDPS Act was not applicable, noted the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the BNSS, 2023, and considered the period of custody already served. Consequently, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding family surety and regular appearance in court.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
  • Whether the NDNDPS Act is applicable to the offence.
  • Whether the petitioner complied with Section 103 of the BNSS, 2023.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • prohibition and excise
  • codeine
  • intoxicant
  • criminal antecedent
  • NDPS Act
  • Section 103 BNSS
  • court conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87652 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2025 Thana- BANGAWON District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Mithilesh Kumar Son of Shankar das R/o Village - Kahara Kutti, P.S. -
                 Saharsa, District - Saharsa.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Ms. Meena Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   10-03-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                           2.       The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Bangoan PS Case No. 137 of 2025 instituted for the offences

                   under Section/s 30(a) & 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   Act.

                           3.       The prosecution case, in short, is that 209 liters

                   codeine cough syrup was recovered from car.

                           4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from

                   the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got

                   no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. It is submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87652 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
                                            2/3




          that petitioner is neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle

          in question and he has no concern with the same. The petitioner

          is in custody since 03.09.2025 and has got three criminal

          antecedent/s. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the

          BNSS, 2023.

                  5.      Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is

          contended that charge has been framed in this case under

          Sections 30(a) & 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

          Learned APP further submitted that vide gazette notification

          dated 18.10.2016, the Government of Bihar has notified that all

          medicines or medical preparations containing (i) Codeine and

          (ii) Dextropropoxyphene as ingredients be treated to be

          intoxicants for the purposes of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

          Act, 2016.

                  6.      From a perusal of the records, it appears that the

          present case has been instituted under Sections 30(a) & 41 of

          the Excise Act, and charge is also framed under the same

          provision. Therefore, the provisions of the NDPS Act are neither

          attracted nor applicable to the present case.

                  7.      Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case and the period of custody undergone by the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87652 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                             8.      Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing

                     bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties

                     of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court

                     below/concerned Court in connection with Bangoan PS Case

                     No. 137 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

                             (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the

                     family of the petitioner.

                             (II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date

                     fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two

                     consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the

                     bail bonds of the petitioner.



                                                                 (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.