Patna High Court

Anirudh RajbharversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANIL KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Anirudh Rajbhar, applied for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 8(C), 20(a)(i) and 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated for cultivating ganja on a piece of land. The FIR, based on a tip received on 16‑11‑2023, claimed that a raid uncovered ganja cultivation on the petitioner’s land identified by specific survey numbers. The petitioner contended that the land does not belong to him, is hilly and unsuitable for plantation, and that no ganja was cultivated. The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific allegations in the FIR. After hearing both sides, the court held that the nature of the allegation and the detailed land description warranted denial of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act in view of the specific allegations of cannabis cultivation.
Whether the factual assertions regarding land ownership and suitability for cultivation affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(a)(i), 20(b)(i), 8(C)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
NDPS Act
cannabis cultivation
land ownership
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88763 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-376 Year-2023 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
                 ======================================================
                 Anirudh Rajbhar S/o Late Ram Briksh Rajbhar R/o Village- Bhalubudan, P.S-
                 Chainpur, Dist- Kaimur at Bhabua.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-01-2026                   Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,

                   arises out of Chainpur Police Station Case No. 376 of 2023,

                   disclosing offences under Sections 8(C), 20(a)(i) and 20(b)(i) of

                   the N.D.P.S. Act.

                                3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information

                   Report, is that the informant, the officer in charge of Chainpur

                   Police Station, received secret information on 16.11.2023 that

                   the petitioner, along with the other accused persons, is

                   cultivating ganja on a large scale on their land. Upon this

                   information, the informant, along with the Circle Officer and

                   police personnel, raided the place of occurrence and found that

                   ganja was being cultivated upon the land of the petitioner
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88763 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     having Mauja Thana No. 914, Khata No. 12, Khesara No. 41.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     petitioner has never cultivated ganja upon the subject land and

                     the subject land does not belong to the petitioner. The land is

                     situated in a hilly area and no plantation can be done on the

                     subject land. The petitioner had not planted the ganja crops, and

                     the same came out as a shrub.

                                  5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

                     has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and

                     submits there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he

                     was cultivating ganja plant upon the land mentioned in the FIR.

                                    6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner

                     and the State and considering the nature of allegation and the

                     specific details of the land mentioned in the FIR with allegation

                     that the petitioner was cultivating ganja plant, I am not inclined

                     to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail, is

                     rejected.



                                              (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…