Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raju Kanu @ Raju Sah @ Raju GuptaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court denied bail, holding that the large quantity of heroin recovered and the petitioner’s antecedents warranted denial of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Raju Kanu, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c) and 21(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for allegedly carrying 65.32 grams of heroin. The prosecution alleged recovery of the heroin from the petitioner’s bag pack. The petitioner claimed innocence and pointed to two prior acquittals, though he had four criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the large quantity of narcotics and the petitioner’s antecedents. The court, noting the substantial heroin seizure and the petitioner’s prior NDPS antecedents, declined to grant bail. The application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations were limited to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 8(c) and 21(a) of the NDPS Act given the quantity of heroin recovered and his criminal antecedents.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • heroin
  • criminal antecedents
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42461 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2026 Thana- KORANSARAI District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Raju Kanu @ Raju Sah @ Raju Gupta Son of Late Shivlal Kanu Resident of
                 Village- Koransarai, P.S.- Koransarai, District- Buxar, Bihar

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr.Priyanka Singh, Advocate
                 For the State          :        Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-07-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Koram

                   Sarai P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 8(c) and Section 21(a) of the

                   Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, there is recovery of

                   65.32 grams of heroine from the bag pack being carried by the

                   petitioner.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

                   case. The petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2026 having four

                   criminal antecedents of which he has been acquitted in two

                   cases.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42461 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                                       2/2




                                  5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the

                     prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the fact that huge quantity of heroine

                     has been recovered from the petitioner and he has similar

                     antecedents under the NDPS case, I am not inclined to grant bail

                     to the petitioner.

                                  7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

                                  8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made

                     herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail

                     application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at

                     any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express

                     any opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                          (Sandeep Kumar, J)

P. Kumar

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.