Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39994 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2022 Thana- DUMRAO District- Buxar ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav Son of Manoj Yadav @ Manji Yadav R/o Village- Buxar Bye Pass, PS -Buxar (Town), Distt.-Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-08-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on secret information, Pintu and Guddu were arrested and from their possession six packets each containing 1.250 kg of ganja in each packet was seized along with mobile, further they disclosed that they sell ganja to Sunny, accordingly studio of Sunny was raided and Sunny was apprehended, further the apprehended accused disclosed that seized ganja belongs to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39994 of 2025(3) dt.27-08-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated in the instant case based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then the seized ganja is less than commercial quantity.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that apprehended accused persons have disclosed the name of the petitioner alleging that the ganja belongs to him and the investigation of the case is in its nascent stages. It is next submitted that of late, offences relating to NDPS has increased.

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

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T