Patna High Court
Ajeet Kumar @ Ajit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of Malsalami, Patna, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS No. 144 of 2026) involving alleged possession of 154 litres of illicit liquor and 1.610 kg of ganja. They argued that the material was not recovered from their conscious possession and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Jitendra while in police custody, which they claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under the Bihar Excise Act, NDPS Act, Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Bengal Gambling Act, and warned that granting bail could enable the accused to abscond as the investigation was at an early stage. The Court examined the submissions and, noting the gravity of the alleged offences and the risk of flight, declined to extend anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Excise Act, NDPS Act, Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Bengal Gambling Act.
Legislation cited
- Bengal Gambling Act — s. 11
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 112(2), 318(4)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(B) IIB, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- narcotics
- excise offences
- gambling
- confessional statement
- police custody
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44151 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2026 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ajeet Kumar @ Ajit Kumar Son of Ashok Ray Resident of Village/Mohalla-
Bhaisani Tola, P.S. Malsalami, District - Patna
2. Chottu Kumar Chaurasiya @ Chotu Chaurisiya @ Neeraj Kumar @ Niraj
Son of Lakhi Prasad Resident of Village/Mohalla-Bhaisani Tola, P.S.
Malsalami, District - Patna
3. Anuj Kumar S/O Ashok Ray Son of Ashok Ray, resident of Village/ Mohalla
-Bhaisani Tola, P.S. Malsalami, District - Patna
4. Mahesh Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Pandit Resident of Mohalla-Simli
Sahadra, P.S. Malsalami, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Malsalami PS Case No. 144 of 2026 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act and Sections
8, 20(B) IIB of NDPS Act and Section 112(2) and 318(4) of BNS and
Section 11 of Bengal Gambling Act.
3. The defect as pointed out by the office is hereby
ignored.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner nos. 1 and 4 have antecedent of one case and petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44151 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
2/2
nos. 2 and 3 are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 154 litres of liquor from a sack concealed in a garden
behind Shyam Sundar Palace along with 1.610 kg of ganja.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and they came to be
implicated based on confessional statement of Jitendra in police
custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is of
recovery of 1.610 kg of ganja also. It is also submitted that of late in
the State of Bihar dry intoxicants are creating havoc for young
children. It is further submitted that investigation of the case is in its
nascent stages and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.
7. Considering the submission made by learned APP, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.