Manish Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14349 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-820 Year-2023 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Manish Yadav Son of Deva Yadav @Deba Yadav @ Tiha Yadav Resident of Village- Jurabganj, P.S.- Korha, Distt.- Katihar (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anup Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 820 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 465, 483/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Allegedly, 1.025 kg of charas was recovered from the possession of co-accused Avinash Yadav @ Abu Yadav. During interrogation, he disclosed the name of the petitioner as his associate, who was the pillion rider and managed to flee away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14349 of 2025(3) dt.15-05-2025 2/2 this case. He has further submitted that his name has figured in confessional statement of co-accused Avinash Yadav @ Abu Yadav, who was arrested at the spot and from his possession 1.025 kg of charas was recovered. The petitioner is under custody since 08.08.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was also accompanying co-accused Avinash Yadav @ Abu Yadav from whose possession, the alleged contraband in commercial quantity was recovered. The petitioner has a criminal antecedent of similar nature.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T