Allowed¶33

Prashant Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 May 2026CR. MISC./31183/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.31183 of 2026, decided 11-05-2026, Ashok Kumar Pandey J — bail granted in Section 21(c) NDPS Act case (Bairgania P.S. Case No.21 of 2026, Sitamarhi); injections, tablets and cough syrups recovered from petitioner's medicine shop; petitioner claimed bonafide licence holder (20B/21B valid upto 17.10.2027), no criminal antecedent, in custody since 21.01.2026; Drugs and Cosmetics Act contention raised by counsel; bail bond Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties before Special Judge (NDPS), Sitamarhi.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Prashant Kumar directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No.21 of 2026 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sitamarhi. ¶33

Prashant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31183 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2026 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Prashant Kumar S/o Harihar Kumar R/o - Bairgania Ward No. 13, P.S - Bairgania, District - Sitamarhi

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 11-05-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶11

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No.21 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.

¶12

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the medicine shop of the petitioner, following drugs were recovered :-

¶13

“1.Buprrnorphine injection Batch no- BUF325007 925 Ampule (0.2m per Ampoule) Exp-08-2027 2. Nitzascen-10 – 3000 tab batch no- CBT25- 1352 Exp- 09/2027

¶14

Nitzascen-10 – 200 tab batch no – CBT25- 1358 Exp-09/2027

¶15

Spasmo Proxyvon Plus Cap 672 cap B/no

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31183 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 2/3

¶17

XAA10480 Exp-July2027

¶18

Diazepam injection- 831 Ampule BnoDA2502(0.2m per Ampoule) Exp-03-2027

¶19

Diazepam injection 81 Ampule Bno-DA2411(0.2m per Ampoule) Exp-03-2026

¶20

Codisrin Coughy 100ml Syp-22 bottel Bno- SGL 125003 Exp-08/2027

¶21

Berry Coff cough 100ml Syp-95 bottel BnoJLN25-071 Exp-11/2027

¶22

Phenergan Injection Batch no NCL0179 – 795 ampoule Exp- 07/2028

¶23

Cocasdx cough syrup 100ml Bno-25J30699 170 Bottle Exp- 09/2027

¶24

11.Cocasdx cough syrup 100ml Bno-25H30832 120 Bottle Exp- 09/2027

¶25

12.Cocasdx cough syrup 100ml Bno-25L3113 40 Bottle Exp- 09/2028

¶26

13.Cocasdx cough syrup 60ml Bno-25J3145 75 Bottle Exp- 09/2027”

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶28

petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is bonafide license holder and he has also annexed the License Retention Letter which is annexed as Annexure-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the License Retention Letter it is clear that license no. 20B and 21B are valid upto 17.10.2027. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is in judicial custody since 21.01.2026.

¶29

The drugs which have been recovered from the

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31183 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 3/3

¶31

possession of the petitioner are at most Schedule-h drug and for that in Drugs and Cosmetics Act, there is provision that a separate register has to be maintained. If the register is not maintained, then also a case under Drugs and Cosmetics Act should have been filed. It is not a case of NDPS. As the petitioner is the bonafide license holder, no case is made out against him.

¶32

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

¶33

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sitamarhi in connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No.21 of 2026.

¶34

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶35

durgesh/-

Prashant Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar 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

Ashok Saw Vs The State of Bihar

Kaushal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar Vs The State of Bihar

Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar