Patna High Court
Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Summary
Manish Kumar, a law student, was implicated in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 8 kg of opium and related substances from a room he rented with his brother. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting that the drugs were found in his brother's possession and that he had no prior criminal record. The prosecution, supported by the NCB, highlighted the recovery, the petitioner’s alleged communication with the main accused, and the landlord’s testimony that the recovery was made after breaking the lock in the presence of the brother. The State and the Union of India opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under the NDPS Act. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, concluding that the circumstances did not warrant such relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act given the facts of drug recovery and alleged involvement.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 18(b), 22(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- possession
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85705 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Vaishali
======================================================
Manish Kumar S/O Vijay Prasad R/O Village- Dharhari, P.S- Chiraiya, Distt.-
East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through N.C.B. Patna. Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P
For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P
for the State and learned counsel for Union of India through
N.C.B.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with C2A (NCB) Case No. 01/2025 arising out of
NCB/PZU/V/05/2025, for the offence punishable under Sections
8(c), 18(b), 22(c) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, pending in the Court of Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Vaishali.
3. As per the prosecution, recovery of 8 kg. opium has
been made which is the subject matter of the present case
through which subsequent link was found by the Investigating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85705 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
Team and subsequent recovery of 6.8 kg of opium and 2.1 kg of
powder (Amphetamine) has been made from the room of
petitioner and his brother which they have taken on rent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he
unnecessarily been made accused in this case. Counsel submits
that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession
of the petitioner. He further submits that the person from whose
possession the alleged recovery has been made is his brother. He
submits that the petitioner is a law student living at Muzaffarpur.
Counsel further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India
through N.C.B opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that it is true that accused Rajnish has been arrested
from the place of occurrence. He submits that a counter affidavit
has been filed in this case, in which it is stated that
conversations took place with the main accused person from
whom the recovery has been made. There was a direct
telephonic communication between them. He submits that the
landlord of the room from which the recovery has been made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85705 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
has categorically stated that the petitioner and his brother were
residing in the said room, and that the recovery was effected
from that room after breaking the lock in the presence of his
brother.
7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…