JAYANNAversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18186 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2025 Thana- KURLIKOT District- Kishanganj
                 ======================================================
                 JAYANNA S/o- Late Nagaraju R/v- Maruthinagar, Solurugoan Po- Soluru Ps-
                 Magadi Taluk Dist- Ramanagar, Karnataka
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Adv
                                                  Mr.Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-05-2026               1.     Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri

                   Rajendra Narain and learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.     The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with

                   Kurlikot PS Case No. 57 of 2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

                             3.     Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 77.370 litres of Ganja from a truck.

                             4.     Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized vehicle. It

                   is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own vehicle

                   for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against

                   himself and hence would get implicated, it is further submitted that

                   petitioner was completely unaware that Venkata Ramu, Pradeep
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18186 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
                                                          2/2




                        Kewat and Kirtibes Sarkar would misuse the vehicle in the manner as

                        alleged, who were also apprehended from the spot. It is also

                        submitted that petitioner in good faith had handed over the truck to

                        his driver Venkata Ramu on monthly rent system for transporting

                        goods and thus was not aware that Venkata Ramu would indulge in

                        such an act.

                                 5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

                        anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that case has been

                        instituted under the NDPS Act and commercial quantity of ganja is

                        alleged to have been recovered from the vehicle, it is next submitted

                        that investigation in the case is required about the involvement of the

                        petitioner in the occurrence for which interrogation is also necessary,

                        it is further submitted that if petitioner is innocent, in that event,

                        police will act accordingly.

                                 6.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

                        Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

                        petitioner.

                                 7.     Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                        petitioner is rejected.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T