Patna High Court
Sanjan Yadav @ Sanjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the court was not inclined to extend the privilege in view of the confessional statement linking the petitioner to the offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjan Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged possession of narcotics and illegal firearms. The prosecution alleged recovery of 3.83 g of smack, 338 g of ganja, 8.5 L of codeine, a country‑made pistol, live and empty cartridges, and claimed the petitioner’s name emerged from a confessional statement of another accused. The petitioner argued he has a clean record and that no contraband was found on his person, rendering the confessional statement inadmissible. The State contended that the matter falls under the NDPS Act and the Arms Act, requiring investigation and interrogation of the petitioner. The court held that the confessional statement, though uncorroborated, sufficed to deny the privilege of anticipatory bail, and consequently rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act and the Arms Act when the only link is a confessional statement of another accused.
- Whether the absence of seized contraband on the petitioner’s person negates the necessity for bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 317(5)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(b)(ii)A, 21(a), 21(c), 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- drug offences
- illegal firearms
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25249 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Sanjan Yadav @ Sanjan Kumar Son of Arun Yadav @ Arun Kumar Resident
of Village- Bhatgama, P.S.- Chausa, District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Barun Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Chausa P.S. Case No.58/2026, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 317(5) of BNS and Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, Sections
8, 21(a), 21(c) and 20(b)(ii)A of NDPS Act and Sections 25(1-
B)(a), 26 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 3.83 grams of smack, 338 grams of Ganja, 8.5 litres
of Codeine from house of Manish along with 2 country made
pistol, two live cartridges and 3 empty cartridges.
4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25249 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/2
arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his
conscious possession and his name transpired based on
confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the
case has been instituted under the NDPS Act and under the
Arms Act. It is also submitted that no doubt the name of the
petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of
apprehended accused in police custody but then in the nature of
allegation, the case requires to be investigated and interrogation
of the petitioner is required. It is also submitted that
investigation of the case is continuing.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…