Patna High CourtCR. MISC./88100/2025rejected

Subodh Kumar Yadav @ Subodh Yadav @ Jairam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-29Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88100 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- JOGBANI District- Araria ====================================================== Subodh Kumar Yadav @ Subodh Yadav @ Jairam Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav R/o Village- Vishanpur, P.S- Jogbani, Dist- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 11.10.2025 in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No.05 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 08.01.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b),(ii), (B) of N.D.P.S. Act.

3. Recovery is of 10 Kg of Ganja.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from possession of co-accused person, namely, Mukesh Mandal and he has stated that he has brought the contraband for the petitioner and petitioner has given the money for that purpose,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88100 of 2025(6) dt.29-04-2026 2/2 apart from the aforesaid, recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the basis of the material available on the record and the case diary, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the FSL report confirms that recovered contraband is Ganja, apart from that, the petitioner carries three more cases, other than the present one, and out of three cases, two cases pertaining to NDPS matter which suggests that the petitioner is involved in the NDPS matter.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No.05 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Araria.

7. Prayer is refused.

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