Patna High Court
Bikash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Bikash Kumar sought anticipatory bail after the police seized 410 grams of ganja, a country-made pistol and live cartridges from his house in Bhagwanganj. He contended that the premises were rented to Sindhu Kumar, the sole accused, and that he had no connection to the contraband or weapons. The State argued that the accused was Kumar's associate and that the seizure from his residence, coupled with his antecedents, precluded bail. The court found no evidence to substantiate the rental claim and considered the seriousness of the NDPS and Arms Act offenses. Consequently, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the bail petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner when contraband cannabis and arms were recovered from his residence.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of renting the premises to the accused negates his liability under the NDPS and Arms Acts.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(a), 8A(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- Arms Act
- seizure of contraband
- rental premises
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33984 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Bikash Kumar S/O Late Doman Yadav Resident of Village- Kajichak
Pattbigha, P.S- Bhagwanganj, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State .
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Bhagwanganj P.S. Case No. 214/2025, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8A(c), 20(b) (ii) (a) N.D.P.S. Act and
Sections 25(1-b) a, 26 of Arms act.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that there is recovery of
410 gram of Ganza and a country made pistol along with two live
cartridge were recovered from the room of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
place of recovery is the house of this petitioner, which according to
the petitioner was let out to one Sindhu Kumar, who has only been
made accused in this case. It is next submitted that since the house
was put on rent to the said accused, who was residing in the said
house is only responsible for the recovery of alleged articles and the
petitioner is no way connected with the seized articles like
contraband cannabis (Ganja), live cartridge and pistol for the cases
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33984 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
2/2
under N.D.P.S. and Arms Act have been registered. The counsel for
the petitioner raises various infirmities in the process of registration
of FIR made in regard to contraband but the fact of allegation being
that the seizure of contraband cannabis (Ganja) as also pistol and live
cartridge being recovered from the house of the petitioner are sought
to be denied by shifting the burden on the sole accused calling him to
be renter.
5. There is nothing on record to show that the house
was put on rent to the sole accused and all such submissions of the
counsel of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned
A.P.P. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, by submitting that the sole accused was
the petitioner’s man, who was being facilitated by him in this case
and under his control, all these activities was going on and looking to
this antecedent, which case is registered under 302 IPC, the privilege
of anticipatory bail may not be extended in such background.
6. Considering the fact that the seizure of NDPS article
and as also the pistol and live cartridge having been recovered from
the house of this petitioner and his antecedent discussed above, this
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of Anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
Sanjeev/-vikram
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.