CR. MISC./53754/2026 of Raushan Kumar Singh @ Raushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 18 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

18-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Singhia P. S. Case No.70 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 13.03.2026, he received a call from Darbhanga Sadar P.S. informing that Pritam had brought Ganja and selling the same. Accordingly, the house of Pritam was raided and 2.940 kg. of ganja was recovered from his house and Pritam was apprehended, who disclosed that he bought Ganja from Ravindra and his son including the petitioner, further an amount of Rs.One Lac and odd was also recovered from the house of Pritam. It is next alleged that house of Ravindra was raided and 260gm Ganja along with Rs.10 Lacs and odd was seized and Ravindra disclosed that petitioner buys Ganja and his younger son Raju sells from his grocery store, thus grocery store was also raided from where 1.890 kg of Ganja was recovered.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case based on confessional statement of his father Ravindra in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that though allegation of recovery of Ganja is alleged, but then the same was not recovered from possession of the petitioner.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that informant alleges that he received an information from Darbhanga Police Station about sale and purchase of Ganja in pursuance whereof, house of Pritam was raided from where Ganja was recovered and he disclosed that he purchases ganj from Ravindra and his son, accordingly the house of Ravindra was raided from where 260gm Ganja was recovered and Ravindra further disclosed that his son i.e. petitioner buys Ganja and his younger son Raju sells from grocery store, accordingly grocery store was raided from where 1.890kg of Ganja was recovered. It is further submitted that no doubt, confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value, but then, the disclosure made by the apprehended accused requires to be corroborated and the disclosure can be corroborated only based on investigation and interrogation. It is also submitted that off late, in the State of Bihar dry intoxicant are creating havoc amongst children of impressionable age.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Pritam was granted the privilege of regular bail by this Court, on which learned A.P.P. submits that petitioner instead of moving the instant anticipatory bail application ought to have surrendered.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

vikash/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T