Patna High Court
Laxman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner, finding sufficient grounds to keep him in custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Laxman Kumar, a truck driver, was arrested in connection with the recovery of 708 kg of ganja from a truck (Reg. No. HR-38Z-3263). He contended that he was falsely implicated, had no knowledge of the drug haul, and that nothing was seized from his person or residence. The State opposed his bail, emphasizing his role as driver and the large quantity of narcotics involved. The court examined the FIR, case diary, and noted that a Section 82 Cr.P.C. process had already been issued against him, and the truck owner identified the petitioner as the driver. Relying on these facts, the court declined to grant regular bail, concluding that the petitioner’s continued custody was justified.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite alleged false implication and clean antecedents
- Whether the identification of the petitioner as the driver of the truck containing narcotics suffices to justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 414/34, 420
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 22
Subjects
- bail
- drug trafficking
- NDPS Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- driver liability
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4580 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2021 Thana- SAKRI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Laxman Kumar, aged about 35 years, Male, S/O Saroj Singh, resident of
Mohala - Sonada Habibpur, P.S- Khurja Nagar, Distt.- Buland Sahar (U.P)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
7 13-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 414/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 22 of the NDPS
Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of recovery
of 708 kg ganja from a truck bearing registration no.HR-38Z-
3263 and petitioner is the driver of the said truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next
submits that the petitioner has not been arrested at the spot nor
anything has been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner or his house and he had no knowledge about the said
truck and seized ganja. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as
stated in para-3 of the petition and he is in custody since
02.04.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4580 of 2026(7) dt.13-07-2026
2/2
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that the huge quantity of ganja
has been recovered from a truck and the petitioner is the driver
of the said truck.
6. On perusal of the first information report, case
diary and impugned order dated 02.07.2025, it appears that 708
kg ganja was recovered from a truck and the petitioner is driver
of the said truck and he was fled away from the spot and the
Khalashi of the said truck was arrested at the spot and his name
transpired on the basis of arrested Khalashi and from perusal of
para-130, 138, 142 of the case diary, it appears that the process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against the
petitioner and in paras 196 and 197 of the case diary as stated by
the owner of truck, namely, Deepak Sharma that the petitioner is
the driver of the said truck (bearing Registration no.
HR38Z3263), considering which, I am not inclined to grant
regular bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
Brajesh Kumar/- (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.