Jitendra Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90646 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-391 Year-2025 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Jitendra Das S/o- Prayag Das Village- Chainpur PS-Barachatti Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. O. P. Maharaj Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026

1. 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 Barachhati Police Station Case No. 391 of 2025, dated 08.11.2025, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 179/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8(c)/21(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the police, on receiving secret information that counterfeit currency is concealed in the Anushka Online Centre, raided the said shop and found the son of the petitioner in the said shop. On search of the shop in question, the police recovered counterfeit currency to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- in Rs. 500/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- denomination. The police also recovered 05 grams of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90646 of 2025(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/2 heroine like substance from the said shop. The son of the petitioner, namely, Anshu Kumar was taken into custody, who disclosed that his father, i.e. the petitioner, operate the shop in question.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case at the behest of some interested person. He further submits that the name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused Anshu Kumar. The petitioner was not present in the shop at the time of search and seizure.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner.

6. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √