Kunal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90371 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-315 Year-2025 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Kunal Kumar S/o Ram Balak Ray @ Ram Balak Yadav R/o VillageBatrauliya, Bazidpur, P.S- Paroo, Dist- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate Ms. Kumari Seema Singh, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with NDPS Case no.129 of 2025, arising out of Paroo P.S. Case no.315 of 2025 registered under sections 317(5) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, 17.45 grams of smack in 40 purias is said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of his antecedents. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The alleged quantity recovered is not a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90371 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026 2/2 commercial quantity. The petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State, who submits that the recovery is from the possession of the petitioner himself and the petitioner has antecedents of seven criminal cases from before including a case under the N.D.P.S Act.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of recovery of 17.45 grams of smack from the possession of the petitioner, the same having been confirmed to be hashish in the FSL report and the petitioner having several antecedents including one under the N.D.P.S Act, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Taking into consideration the period in custody, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T