Randhir Jha @ Randhir Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45315 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- GHANSHYAMPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Randhir Jha @ Randhir Kumar Jha S/O Manikant Jha @ Manna Jha R/O Village- Ghanshyampur, P.S- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No.01 of 2026 dated 01.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 25(1-b)a, 35 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 one country made pistol along with 1096.38 litres of liquor from house of Ajit Kumar.

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 even alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45315 of 2026(2) dt.21-07-2026 2/2 recovery is from house of Ajit, with whom petitioner has no concern or relation and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Santosh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is of recovery of country made pistil also from the house of Ajit Kumar and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Santosh and in the anticipatory bail application, there is no pleading that as to what petitioner does for earning his livelihood. It is further 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 benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T