Prahlad Kumar @ Lukku Vs The State of Bihar

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 14.01.2026 in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2026 for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Amendment Act.

¶17

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.01.2026 at 17 O'Clock during course of vehicle checking the informant received information with regard to transportation prohibited cough syrup. A team was constituted and Vehicle Checking was started. It was further alleged that during that course a Tempo was signaled to stop but the driver attempts to flee. The vehicle was chased. Two persons were caught who disclosed their

¶18

Names as Prahalad Kumar and Sonu Kumar.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24520 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 2/4

¶20

It was further alleged that several persons had assembled there but none agreed to witness search and seizure. During search Total 50 Cartons of codeine cough syrups each containing 140 bottles of 100 ml was recovered from the Tempo. The total cough syrup quantified in liters came to 700 liters. No document relating to said cough syrup was provided. The informant further alleged that the petitioner and co-accused disclosed before consignment was to be delivered in the godown of Manish Kumar @ Manu situated in the House of Upendra Kumar. The police reached the said godown at 23.30 O'clock. Two persons were caught namely Manoj Kumar and Sonu Kumar again no independent person agreed to witness search and seizure. The godown was search in which 25 cartons of codeine cough Syrup totaling 751 liter was seized.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and it appears from FIR and seizure list that 700 liters of codeine cup syrup was recovered from the tempo in question and from the godown of co-accused persons 791 liters of codeine cup syrup was recovered, altogether 1491 liters of codeine cup syrup was recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the seizure list it appears that there is non-compliance

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24520 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 3/4

¶23

of mandatory provisions of Sections 103 and 105 of BNSS, 2023 and petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle in question and co-accused persons, namely, Manoj Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 19.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17707 of 2026, Sonu Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 02.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20761 of 2026, Manish Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16717 of 2026 and Madan Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16796 of 2026 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioner is in custody since 14.01.2026.

¶24

Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the fact that similar set of co-accused persons have been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Special Judge Exclusive Special Court of Excise, Patna City, Patna in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2026, subject to the following

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24520 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 4/4

¶27

conditions:-

¶28

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.

¶29

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶30

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has 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.

¶31

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶32

Gaurav Sinha/-

¶33

U T

Prahlad Kumar @ Lukku v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Kumar @ Lukku v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumtaz Ansari @ Momtaz Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Mannu Kumar @ Bhikhari @ Manu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjit Kumar @ Amarjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kanhaiya Paswan Vs The State of Bihar