Radhe @ Jitendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39885 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2026 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Radhe @ Jitendra Paswan S/O Basudev Paswan R/O Danka Imali, P.SAlamganj, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kritu Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Alamganj P. S. Case No.08 of 2026, Special (NDPS) Case No.62 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of five cases and the informant alleges that Jitendra was apprehended with 29.30 grams of smack and Rs.4,050/- and the apprehended accused disclosed that the smack was supplied to him by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39885 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/2 allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner was not apprehended 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. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that no doubt, name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, but then petitioner has antecedent of five cases out of which four cases are under serious sections of I.P.C. and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or tray to tamper with the evidence.

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

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T