Raj Kumar @ Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16249 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- NAUGACHIA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Raj Kumar @ Raja Kumar Son of Nityanand Sah Resident of VillageSahutola, Bhawanipur, P.S.- Bhawanipur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Naugachia P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

3.

Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that there is recovery of 723.67 gram of brown sugar from the possession of co-accused, namely, Juli @ Mahi.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16249 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 2/2 perusal of the FIR, it is evident that no recovery is made from the possession of the petitioner. Name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case on the disclosure made by apprehended coaccused person. Learned counsel lastly submits that there is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. 5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is fervently submitted that regular bail of co-accused, who was arrested from the place of occurrence, has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2026, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 91807 of 2025.

6.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find this case fit for grant of anticipatory bail. Prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

7.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same would be considered by the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

Raj Kishore/- (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) U T