Navin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16674 of 2026 Arising out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- Pothia District- Katihar ====================================================== Navin Kumar S/o Sharwan Singh R/o - Mathurapur Ward No. 03, P.S - Khagaria, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Pothiya P.S. Case No. 123 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111, 318(4), 319(2) of BNS & 21(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The allegation is that the FIR was lodged with the allegation that there was an accident between two vehicles. The drivers were taken to hospital and their families were informed. Two persons namely Raj Tilak and the petitioner came to the police station where the vehicle was kept and they produced their identity card. They started dragging something from the sound system of the vehicle. The police after seeing the same

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16674 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026 2/3 arrested them and recovered 700 Gms of heroin from their possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure list would show that the recovery has been made from Raj Tilak and not the petitioner. There is nothing at all to distinguish the case of Raj Tilak and Naveen Kumar (Petitioner) though the allegation seems to be a bit preposterous.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the commercial quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of the petitioner which is barred under section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

8. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

9. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16674 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026 3/3 influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.

(Ansul, J) Vikash/- U T