Md. Yakub @ Md. Yakub Khan @ Yaqub Khan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44790 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- Sahayak Khajanchi District- Purnia ====================================================== Md. Yakub @ Md. Yakub Khan @ Yaqub Khan, Son of Late Latif Khan @ Late Md. Latif Khan @ Latif Khan, R/o village - Kasai Mohalla Kabristan, P.S.- Sahayak Khajanchi, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Md Naushaduzzoha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard Mr. Md Naushaduzzoha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No. 123 of 2025 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 21 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that from the courtyard of Md. Dilawar who is the son of the petitioner, altogether 20 bottles each of 100 ml. containing codeine was recovered.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. He is having no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44790 of 2025(3) dt.11-09-2025 2/2 antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 29.04.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. From perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is clear that more than commercial quantity of the codeine has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year, if so advised.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T