Patna High CourtCR. MISC./86841/2025rejected

Pintoo Yadav @ Vivek Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-30Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86841 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2025 Thana- KORANSARAI District- Buxar ====================================================== Pintoo Yadav @ Vivek Yadav Son of Lalan Yadav R/O Vill.- Ranibag, P.S.- Koransarai, Dist.- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026 Heard Mr.Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Shailendra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 08.09.2025 in connection with Koransarai P.S.Case No. 112 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 07.09.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c)21(b) of N.D.P.S.Act.

3. Recovery is of 229.1 Gm of Heroin.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86841 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026 2/2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that altogether 229.1 Gm of Heroin was recovered from possession of the petitioner, apart from that, 4.30 lakh cash, 100 piece rubber and one mobile were also recovered from possession of the petitioner, apart from that, the recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity but more than the small quantity, the petitioner carries four more cases other than the present one and out of four cases, three cases pertaining to NDPS Act, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Koransarai P.S.Case No. 112 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Buxar.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T