CR. MISC./50101/2026 of Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs The State of Bihar on 13 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

13-08-2026

1. 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(B), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the BNS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 08.04.2026 during routine checking, a truck was stopped at Hardatta and from the truck 591.76 kg of ganja was recovered and driver of the truck Abdul Khan was arrested who disclosed that one Rajesh @ Pintu had given him Rs. 15,000/- by way of advance for transporting the narcotics from Hariharganj to Vikramganj where he would have taken the ganja and thereafter would have paid the rest Rs. 35,000.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and Abdul Khan who was arrested also does not disclose the name of the petitioner rather has stated that ganja was given to him by Rajesh @ Pintu for a consideration for transporting it from Hariharganj to Vikramganj, it is further submitted that during the course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner is the owner of the seized truck, it is next submitted that petitioner had sold the truck to Abdul Khan who was arrested on 04.02.2026 based on a notarized affidavit for a consideration of Rs. 1201000, it is also submitted that during the course of investigation, it transpired that the fastag sticker on the truck was in the name of the wife of Abdul Khan, it is thus submitted that since Abdul Khan had purchased the vehicle from the petitioner hence he was using it and the fastag was also in the name of his wife.

5. On query of the Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that whether in pursuance of sale of the truck, the ownership of the truck should transferred in the name of Abdul Khan or not on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that the ownership has not been transferred, thereafter the Court made another query that whether the mode resorted to by the petitioner transferring the vehicle is legal mode of transfer of a vehicle, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner again fairly submits that the mode adopted by the petitioner for selling the vehicle is not the mode in accordance with law.

6. At this stage, learned APP for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad submits that if the Court for the presence records an order that the truck was validly sold to Abdul Khan in absence of transfer of ownership that would amount to travicity of justice for the reason that, in that event, Abdul Khan would be made an accused on the ground that he is the owner of the seized truck when he is not in accordance with law as submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners recorded hereinabove. It is also submitted that the amount of ganja recovered from the truck is 591.76 kg, as such, the recovery is huge, it is further submitted that the stand taken by the petitioner may be a ploy to implicate Abdul Khan.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration, the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and also the fact that 591.76 kg of ganja was recovered from a truck which is registered in the name of the petitioner and are not transferred in the name of abdul Khan, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Thus, this application stands rejected.

nitesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T