Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67802/2025dismissed

Santosh Bhuiya @ Santosh Bhuiyan @ Kanan Bhuiya v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-23Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67802 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2025 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Santosh Bhuiya @ Santosh Bhuiyan @ Kanan Bhuiya Son of Bijali Bhuiya Resident of Village- Bhalua, P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(b), 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner and other coaccused persons cultivated the Opium crop on the forest land. A joint team of forest officials and the officials of Narcotics and Control Bureau raided the field and destroyed the opium plants by JCB machine and tractor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67802 of 2025(2) dt.23-09-2025 2/2 the present case. It is further submitted that the lands where opium crop is alleged to have cultivated does not belong to the petitioner rather it is a forest land.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. The joint team of Narcotics and Control Bureau and Forest Department destroyed the opium crops cultivated over the forest land is alleged to be grown by the petitioner and the other accused persons named in the FIR.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T