Ranjeet Paswan @ Ranjit Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11972 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-976 Year-2025 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjeet Paswan @ Ranjit Paswan S/O Late Arjun Paswan R/O VillageJhoparpatti, Kankarbagh, Thana Road, Lohianagar, P.S- Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Khushi Awadh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 976 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 21, 22(a) of the NDPS Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 25.75 litres of liquor from hut of five accused persons along with several pieces of drug injection from possession of Ganesh.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11972 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 recovered from his conscious possession and his name transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended-accused 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 the case has been instituted under the NDPS Act; and apart from recovery of liquor, it is alleged that drug injections were also recovered from the possession of Ganesh; and Ganesh in his confessional statement disclosed the name of the petitioner and 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