Sanjan Yadav @ Sanjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25249 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Sanjan Yadav @ Sanjan Kumar Son of Arun Yadav @ Arun Kumar Resident of Village- Bhatgama, P.S.- Chausa, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Barun Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No.58/2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 317(5) of BNS and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, Sections 8, 21(a), 21(c) and 20(b)(ii)A of NDPS Act and Sections 25(1B)(a), 26 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 3.83 grams of smack, 338 grams of Ganja, 8.5 litres of Codeine from house of Manish along with 2 country made pistol, two live cartridges and 3 empty cartridges.

4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25249 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026 2/2 arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and his name transpired based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case has been instituted under the NDPS Act and under the Arms Act. It is also submitted that no doubt the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody but then in the nature of allegation, the case requires to be investigated and interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is also submitted that investigation of the case is continuing.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T