← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./69560/2025dismissed

Arfin Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-05Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69560 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- MATIYARIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Arfin Sah Son of Majis Sah Resident of Village - Meghaul Mathiya @ Meghwal Mathia, P.S. - Ramnagar, District - West Champaran at Bettiah. 2.

Bhagwan Paswan@Bhagan Paswan Son of Late Keyal Paswan@Late Kayal Paswan Resident of Village - Meghaul Mathiya, P.S. - Ramnagar, District - West Champaran at Bettiah.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md.Abu Shajar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioners are seeking regular bail in connection with Matiyariya P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii) (c)/23(c) of NDPS Act.

3. As per allegation, total 22.232 kg of ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated. They are under custody since 15.04.2025. The procedure of search and seizure was not complied with.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69560 of 2025(5) dt.05-02-2026 2/2

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioners in the statements of the witnesses in paragraph nos. 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35 and 36 of the case diary. The recovered contraband is greater than the commercial quantity.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T