Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in connection with a case involving alleged recovery of large quantities of codeine cough syrup from an auto and a godown. He argued that he has a clean record, was not caught in possession, does not own the vehicle or the godown, and that the only link to him is a confessional statement made by co‑accused Dheeraj and Ravi while in police custody, which he contended lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of codeine abuse among youths, the appearance of the petitioner’s name in the confessional statements, and the need for further interrogation as the investigation continues. The court considered the State’s submission and the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, and decided not to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the absence of direct possession and reliance solely on co‑accused confessional statements.
- Whether confessional statements made by co‑accused in police custody can be a sufficient basis to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of ownership of the seized property warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a), 30(g), 32, 56(b), 62
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- codeine cough syrup
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- police custody
- drug trafficking
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8770 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-352 Year-2025 Thana- BEUR District- Patna
======================================================
Rohit Kumar S/o- Baleswar Thakur Resident of Mohalla - Indrapuri Sipara,
P.O. -Dhelwan, P.S.- Beur, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prasoon Shekhar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Beur P.S. Case No. 352 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 30(a), 30(g), 32, 56(b) and 62 of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 280 litres of codeine cough syrup from an Auto and
750 litres of codeine cough syrup from godown of Santu.
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 Auto and the godown does not belong to him and he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8770 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/2
has no relation or concern with Santu and he came to be
implicated based on confessional statement of Dheeraj and Ravi
in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is
of recovery of codeine cough syrup. It is next submitted that
children of young ages of late have started consuming codeine
in large number, which is having severe impact on the society. It
is further submitted that no doubt the name of the petitioner
transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended-accused
in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value,
but since name of the petitioner has transpired as such
interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is also submitted
that investigation in the case is 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.