Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17937 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2024 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar S/O Shambhu Rai@ Shambhu Ray R/O Vill.- Tikuliya, P.S.- Aadapur, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Adapur P.S. Case No. 227 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 132 of B.N.S and Sections 8/20(b), 11(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act.

3. On getting confidential information, the police raided the house of co-accused Akhtar Sah, said to be ganja smuggler. He was arrested and 11 kgs of ganja was recovered from his house. Co-accused Akhtar Sah apprised the police that he had also concealed ganja in a Scorpio vehicle, which was to be delivered to other co-accused persons, including the petitioner. Thereafter, 20 kgs of ganja were recovered from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17937 of 2025(4) dt.30-10-2025 2/2 Scorpio.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He was not arrested at the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession and his name has figured in the confessional statement of the co-accused.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. The arrested co-accused, Akhtar Sah, disclosed that the ganja loaded on the Scorpio vehicle was to be delivered to the co-accused persons and the petitioner. The petitioner has five criminal antecedents.

7. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T