Upendra Chaudhary @ Phatta @ Upendra Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69849 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2025 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Upendra Chaudhary @ Phatta @ Upendra Kumar Chaudhary S/o Late Rama Chaudhary R/o Village- Panch Mahallah, P.S. and Dist.- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nityanand Neeraj, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-11-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 471 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the NDPS Act and the informant alleges that on information, the house of Priya Devi was raided and 57.53 grams of smack was recovered and Priya Devi was arrested who disclosed that petitioner who is her brother-in-law used to supply smack in the locality and Mohit, Rita, Daulti Devi and Santosh were also involved in the occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69849 of 2025(2) dt.01-11-2025 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that smack was recovered from the house of Priya Devi who is his sister-in-law and they reside separately. It is next submitted that since petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the NDPS Act, as such, he came to be implicated in the instant case by the police.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the NDPS Act and based on confessional statement of Priya, the name of the petitioner transpired and the case is in its nascent stages of investigation and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

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