Ramvilas Singh @ Rambilash Singh Aned @ Rambilash Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44793 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2026 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Ramvilas Singh @ Rambilash Singh Aned @ Rambilash Singh S/o- Late Narayan Singh Resident of village- Pathel, PS- Rajpur, District- Chatra, Jharkhand, 2.
Mallo Yadav @ Mallu Kumar Yadav S/o- Late Khushi Yadav @ Khushi Mahto Resident of village- Pathel, PS- Rajpur, District- Chatra, Jharkhand, ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Barachatty P.S. Case no. 80 of 2026, registered under Sections 8(b), 18 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the prosecution story which has been lodged on the basis of written report submitted by the informant to the effect that on the direction given by the higher officials, he along with forest officials reached the protected forest area, where cultivation of opium was being done. It was found that opium was being cultivated in total 3.62 Acres of protected forest land and during course of enquiry from the villagers the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44793 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 2/3 name of petitioners and one another person came to the knowledge of the informant. On the basis of the same the petitioners along with one another person, namely Indradeo Manjhi has been made accused in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have got no concern with the forest land and even the opium in question. From the FIR itself it would transpire that the opium was being cultivated in the protected forest land and the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the petitioners have got clean a antecedent.
5. Per contra the learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioners along with one Indradeo Manjh were cultivating opium in the protected forest area, which is the land of the forest department.
6. Considering the rival submissions and after going through the records it appears that on the directions of the higher authorities, the informant along with his team reached the protected forest area and found that in total 3.62 Acres of land, opium was being cultivated and during enquiry the name of the petitioners as well as one Indradeo Manjhi transpired. On the basis of the same the petitioners along with Indradeo Manjhi have been made accused in this FIR. Considering the allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44793 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 3/3 of cultivation of opium in huge part of forest land, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly the anticipatory bail petition is hereby rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J) shital/- U T