Patna High Court
Rubin Kumar ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the petitioner’s only connection to the offence is vehicle ownership and no material evidence links him to the narcotics.
Summary
The petitioner, Rubin Kumar Manjhi, the registered owner of a vehicle from which 100 grams of cannabis was seized, was implicated in an NDPS case after two individuals were arrested at the scene. He contended that he had no knowledge of the drug possession and that the only link to the offence was his ownership of the vehicle, which the investigating officer’s counter‑affidavit also acknowledged. Relying on the lack of any material connecting him to the contraband, his counsel sought anticipatory bail, arguing that he would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed, but the court noted that mere ownership does not constitute sufficient grounds for detention. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act, subject to a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties, with a provision for cancellation if the petitioner fails to cooperate.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, being only the owner of the vehicle from which narcotics were recovered, can be detained without further material linking him to the offence.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act in the circumstances.
- Whether the conditions imposed for anticipatory bail are sufficient to safeguard the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act — s. 482(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(B)IIA, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- vehicle ownership
- false implication
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87812 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan
======================================================
Rubin Kumar Manjhi S/O Baban Manjhi Resident of Village- Chak
Parshuram, P.S.- Siwan Mufassil, Dist.- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8,
20(B)IIA of NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the NDPS Act and
the informant alleges that 100 grams smack was recovered from
a car and Ankit along with Ranjan were arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant, it is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested
from the spot and, as such, nothing was recovered from his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87812 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
conscious possession and he came to be implicated based on the
fact that he is owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted
that no prudent person would use his own vehicle for
committing an occurrence and thus would create an evidence
against himself and would get implicated. It is next submitted
that the petitioner was completely unaware that his friend Ankit
and Ranjan would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged
who was also apprehended from the spot. It is next submitted
that petitioner came to be implicated merely for the reason that
he is owner of the seized vehicle. It is also submitted that
commercial quantity of smack is 250 grams and above and
small quantity is five grams but then intermediate quantity of
smack is alleged to have been recovered from the car i.e., 100
grams. It is further submitted that a counter-affidavit has been
filed by Superintendent of Police, Siwan and from perusal of
paragraph-14 of the counter-affidavit, it would manifest that the
same records – “That it is stated that, as per the investigation
conducted and Report No. 3 of the case, no involvement of the
petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence as
transpired, except for the fact that he is the registered owner of
the seized vehicle, copy of Report No. 3 is annexed as
Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87812 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits
that even the Superintendent of Police in his counter-affidavit
has clearly stated that name of the petitioner transpired for the
reason that he is owner of the vehicle and except that fact no
material transpires during the course of investigation connecting
him with the offence. It is further submitted that merely because
narcotics was recovered from the car and two persons were
arrested and petitioner is owner of the vehicle that in itself
cannot be a ground for sending the petitioner to jail when during
the course of investigation, no material transpired even remotely
connecting with the offence. It is also submitted that if privilege
of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State based on the
counter-affidavit fairly submits that the said fact stands pleaded
at paragraph-14 of the counter-affidavit.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87812 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Siwan
Muffasil P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025 subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
8. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father Baban Manjhi.
9. It is made clear that if the investigating officer of
the case files an application before the learned Trial Court,
bringing to its notice that the petitioner, despite giving assurance
to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation, in that
event, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner after recording reasons.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…