Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83962 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2024 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar S/O Krishna Roy @ Krishna Prasad Yadav @ Krishn Rai @ Krishna Rai R/O Village- Tikuliya, P.S- Aadapur, Distt.- East Chamapran, Motihari.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Aadapur P. S. Case No.227 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 132 of the B.N.S. and Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of six cases and allegation is of recovery of 131 kg. of ganja from the house and car of coaccused.

4. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from house

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83962 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026 2/2 and car of co-accused with whom petitioner has no concern. It is further submitted that name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that allegation is of recovery of 131 kg. of ganja from the house and car of the apprehended accused and it was in his confession, the name of the petitioner transpired. It is also submitted that petitioner has antecedent of six cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond.

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

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T