Patna High Court
Vikash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Vikash Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after a police case was registered for the alleged recovery of 53 kg of ganja from a Tata Sumo vehicle, with the vehicle and narcotics allegedly belonging to him. The prosecution’s case is based primarily on a confessional statement made by an apprehended accomplice, Jitendra, who named the petitioner as the owner of the seized narcotics and vehicle. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he has a clean record, was not present at the scene, did not have possession, and that a confessional statement made in police custody lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of the narcotics and the petitioner’s identification in the statement, asserting that the matter warrants full investigation. The High Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the circumstances did not merit such relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only incriminating material is a confessional statement made by an accomplice in police custody.
- Whether the mere mention of the petitioner’s name in a confessional statement suffices to deny anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- confessional statement
- commercial quantity
- narcotics
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15555 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2024 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Vikash Kumar S/o- Panalal sah R/v- Bijbani Ps- Jitna Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar No.Iii
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Dumariyaghat P. S. Case No.86 of 2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C),
25 of the NDPS Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and
allegation is of recovery of 53 kg. of ganja from a Tata
Sumo vehicle and Jitendra was apprehended.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, as
such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15555 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
and his name transpired in the confessional statement of
Jitendra, who disclosed that ganja and vehicle belongs to
Vikash Kumar, mobile no.7485062825 and Rambabu Sah
and they had asked him to deliver ganja to Rambabu Sah at
Muhammadpur, Gopalganj. Further that earlier on their
instruction, he had delivered ganja to Rambabu Sah at
Muhammadpur.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that confessional statement in police custody, which does
not have any evidentiary value and petitioner is not the
owner of the seized vehicle.
6. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that allegation is of recovery of
commercial quantity of the ganja and the name of the
petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of
apprehended accused. It is fairly submitted that confessional
statement does not have any evidentiary value, but then,
since name of the petitioner has transpired in the case, the
case requires to be investigated since huge quantity of
narcotic is alleged to have been recovered.
7. Considering the submissions made by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15555 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…