Alok KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86963 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUAWA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Alok Kumar S/O Ramyad Rai @ Ramyad Yadav Resident Of Village-
                 Katkenwa, P.S - Mahuawa,Dist.- East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Manoj Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-03-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.    The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Mahuawa PS Case No. 88 of 2025 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(B), 23(b) and 29

                   of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that on secret information, an accused was arrested, who

                   was coming from Nepal and disclosed his name as Rakesh and

                   from his possession 1 kg charas was recovered and he disclosed

                   that he got charas from Mukesh, a resident of Nepal, and was

                   asked to deliver the same to Manu, a resident of Gazipur and for

                   the work, he got Rs. 3,000/-, further petitioner along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86963 of 2025(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                            2/3




          Pankaj and Sanjay, all residents of East-Champaran, are also

          involved with him in the trade.

                   4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and his name

          transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended-accused

          in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It

          is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged

          in the FIR, it would manifest that the apprehended accused did

          not disclose that petitioner in the instant occurrence was

          associated with him rather has stated that petitioner along with

          others are involved in the trade along with him. It is further

          submitted that no doubt the charas recovered from the

          apprehended accused is of commercial quantity, but the,

          petitioner is not alleged to be involved in receiving charas from

          Mukesh for delivering it to Manu.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes

          the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that

          from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would

          manifest that commercial quantity of charas is alleged to have

          been recovered from Rakesh and based on disclosure made by

          Rakesh, the name of the petitioner and others transpired in the

          case. It is fairly submitted that Rakesh does not allege that
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86963 of 2025(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                                          3/3




                        petitioner was involved in the occurrence in the instant

                        transaction, but then Rakesh has disclosed that petitioner along

                        with others are involved with him in carrying of the trade. It is

                        also submitted that investigation is continuing. It is next

                        submitted that from perusal of the pleadings made in the

                        anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that petitioner

                        has not even suggested that what he does for his earnings.

                                 6.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties

                        and taking the submission made by learned APP into

                        consideration, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of

                        anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                 7.     Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                        petitioner is rejected.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T