Chotak Kumar @ Lavkush Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76740 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2025 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Chotak Kumar @ Lavkush Rai S/O Birendra Ray Resident of Vill.- Dhanachua, P.S.- Chaori, Dist.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-12-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahar P.S. Case No.131/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that Rahul was arrested with 34.63 gram of Smack like substance and he disclosed the name of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that since petitioner has antecedent of two cases as such the informant got him

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76740 of 2025(2) dt.01-12-2025 2/2 implicated through Rahul. It is next submitted that petitioner was not found at the place of occurrence as such there was no recovery from him. It is next submitted that confessional statement in police custody 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 Rahul was arrested with 34.63 gram of Smack and based on his confession, the name of the petitioner transpired. It is also submitted that though confession statement does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law but then it is a case registered under the NDPS and the investigation is in its nascent stages and petitioner has antecedent of two case and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T