IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76356 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Dharmendra Kumar Son of Kameshwar Raut Resident of Village- Manpur, Kurmi Tola, manpur, Ps- Mufassil, Dist- Gaya 2. Mohit Kumar son of Bigan Prasad @ vigan Prasad Resident of Village- tekari road, dhami tola, Purushottam Das Lane, Murarpur Road Gaya, ps- kotwali, Dist- Gaya 3. Gaurav Kumar Son of Late Arun Prasad Resident of Village- Chhotaki Nawada, Gandhi Chowk, PS- Delha, Dist- Gaya 4. Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Kumar Lohani son of Sri Ajay Lohani Resident of Village- Chhotaki Nawada, Gandhi Chowk, PS- Delha, Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR CAV ORDER 3 27-04-2026 The present application has been filed for quashing of First Information Report (FIR) of Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025, registered for the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, who is Sub Inspector of Police, under the direction of the S.H.O., went along with the police party to Gangamahal Tutwari and raided the house of one Chandramohan Singh. They saw four persons keeping cartons inside a room. On seeing the police party, the aforesaid four persons tried to flee away, however, they were apprehended. On being asked, they disclosed their Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76356 of 2025(3) dt.27-04-2026 2/4 names as Rohit Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar, Mohit Kumar and Sujal Kumar. Thereafter, for search of the room, the informant tried to find out two independent witnesses, however, as none was ready, treating the constables of the police party to be witnesses, search of the room was made, wherefrom 106 cartons of Onerex Cough Syrup (codeine Phosphate & Tgriprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup) each carton containing 120 bottles of of 100 ml syrup, totaling 1272 liter, 113 cartons of Wincerex Cough Syrup each carton containing 120 of 100 ml. totaling 1356 liters were seized. No documents were produced upon demand from the apprehended persons. Thereafter, a seizure list was prepared. From adjacent room, large amount of physician samples medicines were also recovered for which due action was sought to be taken by the Drug Inspector. Since Codeine and Dextropropoxyphene come under the purview of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act as contraband drugs, the present FIR under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case has wrongly been registered under the provisions of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, whereas the alleged recovery is of the consignments of medicines and the offence, if any, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76356 of 2025(3) dt.27-04-2026 3/4 would fall under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, since even as per the prosecution case, total 2628 liters of Onerex and Wincerex Cough Syrup were recovered from the house of Chandramohan Singh. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have been granted the privilege of bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, hence the accusations as levelled against the petitioners were not of such a grave nature, warranting petitioners continued detention. It has also been submitted that the petitioners were merely involved in unloading the cartons without having the knowledge of their contents and the seized medicines have been released in favour of S.R. Traders, the actual owners of the medicines in question. The actual owners had valid invoices in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the FIR itself be quashed as no offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act is made out. 4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that though the petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR, while from the record itself it would emerge that after investigation, charge- sheet has been submitted and the cognizance of the offences has been taken against the petitioners. The petitioners ought to have Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76356 of 2025(3) dt.27-04-2026 4/4 challenged the cognizance order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 6. The petitioners have challenged the FIR, while the investigation is complete and cognizance has been taken. Moreover, the stage has now considerably been changed and hence in the present facts and circumstances, the FIR cannot be quashed. 7. This application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pawan/- (Praveen Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 07.04.2026 Uploading Date 27.04.2026 Transmission Date 27.04.2026