Patna High Court
Ritesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail, holding that the lack of material evidence, procedural violations, and the petitioner’s status as a juvenile warranted release.
Summary
Ritesh Kumar, a minor born in 2010, was implicated in a NDPS case after police recovered 2.5 kg of ganja from a bag he allegedly threw while fleeing. The prosecution’s case relied on unidentified witnesses who named the petitioner, but their identities were omitted from the FIR. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the search violated Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and that, as a child in conflict with law, he is entitled to anticipatory bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the recovered narcotics and the witness statements. The Court found no substantive evidence of the petitioner’s complicity, noted procedural lapses in the search, and, considering his juvenile status and clean record, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a child in conflict with law under the NDPS Act.
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS vitiates the search and seizure.
- Whether identification of the accused by unnamed witnesses, without their names in the FIR, suffices for proceeding against the accused.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Search and Seizure Act (BNSS) — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(B), 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- juvenile justice
- child in conflict with law
- search and seizure
- procedural lapse
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39098 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2025 Thana- Kumarbagh District- West Champaran
======================================================
Ritesh Kumar Son of Sri Bipin Pandey Resident of Vill- Bari Tola, Gidha
Pandey Tola, P.S.-Chanpatia, Dist- West Champaran, through his father and
natural Guardian, Sri Bipin Pandey, Aged about 46 years, Male, Son of
Resident of village- Bari Tola Gidha, Pandey Tola, Ps- Chanpatia, Dist- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Kumarbagh P.S. Case No.204 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS
Act.
3. During the course of patrolling, the police allegedly
noticed a person carrying a plastic bag. When they attempted to
apprehend him, he allegedly fled from the spot after throwing
away the said bag. Upon search of the bag, a total of 2.5
kilograms of ganja was recovered. On enquiry, certain persons
present nearby allegedly disclosed the name of the petitioner as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39098 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
the person who had fled after throwing the bag.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the entire prosecution case based upon the disclosure allegedly
made by certain persons present near the place of occurrence.
However, surprisingly, neither their identities nor their names
have been disclosed in the FIR. It is further contended that the
search and seizure smacks mala fide for the simple reason that
the witnesses are none else but the police personnel, irrespective
of the fact that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the
nearby people and, as such, there appears to be non-compliance
with the mandate of Section 103 of the BNSS. It is further
submitted that the requirement of Section 105 of the BNSS has
also not been adhered to, as the search was not conducted under
videography, as contemplated under the said provision. Learned
counsel next contended that the petitioner is a student and,
according to the admit card issued by the CBSE for the
Matriculation Examination, his date of birth is recorded as
29.01.2010. Therefore, on the date of the alleged occurrence, the
petitioner was a juvenile and falls within the category of a Child
in Conflict with Law. Referring to the decision of this Court in
Rohit Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar, reported in 2025(6)
BLJ 181, learned counsel submitted that there is no legal bar to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39098 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
the maintainability of an application for anticipatory bail at the
instance of a Child in Conflict with Law.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the
name of the petitioner has been disclosed by the persons who
were present at the time of occurrence and during the course of
search, 2.5 Kg. ganja was recovered from a plastic bag which
was thrown by the petitioner.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note
of the fact that save and except the disclosure made by unknown
persons regarding the involvement of the petitioner, there is no
material suggesting his complicity, besides there is no
compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and the fact
the petitioner is a juvenile and falls within the category of a
Child in Conflict with Law, having clean antecedent, let the
above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge,
NDPS, Bettiah, West Champaran/Successor Court in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39098 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
with Kumarbagh P.S. Case No.204 of 2025, subject to the
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with
further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close
family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.