Patna High Court

CR. MISC./25689/2026 of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar on 2 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25689 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-491 Year-2025 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Bihari Yadav R/O Village- Chargaha, P.S-Turkauliya , District-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25689 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-491 Year-2025 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ======================================================

Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Bihari Yadav R/O Village- Chargaha, P.S-Turkauliya , District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

ORAL ORDER

02-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii) (C), 23(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the poultry farm of this petitioner, altogether 88.7 kg of ganja was recovered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and the police have not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. He further submits that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25689 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026

though the poultry farm belongs to the petitioner, the same was given on rent to one Munna Yadav vide an agreement dated 14.02.2024. He also submits that as the petitioner has handed over the poultry farm to Munna Yadav on rent, he is not concerned in any way with the said poultry farm; only ownership of the poultry farm is with him, whereas possession is with Munna Yadav. He lastly submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 10.10.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent of three cases.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with N.D.P.S. G.R. Case No. 141 of 2025 arising out of Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025.

Sudhanshu/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead