Anirudh Rajbhar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88763 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-376 Year-2023 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Anirudh Rajbhar S/o Late Ram Briksh Rajbhar R/o Village- Bhalubudan, P.SChainpur, Dist- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Chainpur Police Station Case No. 376 of 2023, disclosing offences under Sections 8(C), 20(a)(i) and 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant, the officer in charge of Chainpur Police Station, received secret information on 16.11.2023 that the petitioner, along with the other accused persons, is cultivating ganja on a large scale on their land. Upon this information, the informant, along with the Circle Officer and police personnel, raided the place of occurrence and found that ganja was being cultivated upon the land of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88763 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/2 having Mauja Thana No. 914, Khata No. 12, Khesara No. 41.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never cultivated ganja upon the subject land and the subject land does not belong to the petitioner. The land is situated in a hilly area and no plantation can be done on the subject land. The petitioner had not planted the ganja crops, and the same came out as a shrub.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was cultivating ganja plant upon the land mentioned in the FIR.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and considering the nature of allegation and the specific details of the land mentioned in the FIR with allegation that the petitioner was cultivating ganja plant, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail, is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T