Patna High Court
CR. MISC./59052/2026 of Manoj Rai @ Manoj Ray Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59052 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2026 Thana- JANTA BAZAR District- Saran ====================================================== Manoj Rai @ Manoj Ray S/o Indradeo Rai @ Indradev Ray Resident of Village - Senduar Purab Tola,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59052 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2026 Thana- JANTA BAZAR District- Saran ======================================================
Manoj Rai @ Manoj Ray S/o Indradeo Rai @ Indradev Ray Resident of Village - Senduar Purab Tola, PS - Janta Bazar, District - Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Bindhaychal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026
Heard Mr. Bindhaychal Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parmanand Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 119 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 30.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 8, 20(b) (ii) c, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Recovery is of 36.9 Kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present. He further submits that it appears from the FIR as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from different places and name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely, Indradeo Rai who happens to be the father of the petitioner. Except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He further submits that the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Naresh Kumar Rai has also been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57328 of 2026. He further submits that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and his name has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused person who happens to be the father of the petitioner and similarly situated co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Saran at Chapra in connection with Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 119 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
Vanisha/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T