Dismissed¶24

Manish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Mar 2026CR. MISC./85705/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 85705 of 2025, decided 19-03-2026 by Dr. Anshuman, J. Anticipatory bail application of Manish Kumar in NDPS case C2A (NCB) Case No. 01/2025 arising out of NCB/PZU/V/05/2025 (P.S. Case No. 5 of 2025, Vaishali) under Sections 8(c), 18(b), 22(c) & 29 NDPS Act; prosecution alleged 8 kg opium recovery leading to recovery of 6.8 kg opium and 2.1 kg amphetamine powder from a room rented by the petitioner and his brother; NCB relied on telephonic contact with the main accused and the landlord's statement; prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.

What did the court decide?

In the present facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail. ¶24

Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85705 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Vaishali

¶3

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

¶4

Manish Kumar S/O Vijay Prasad R/O Village- Dharhari, P.S- Chiraiya, Distt.East Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

The Union of India through N.C.B. Patna. Bihar

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 19-03-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P

¶14

for the State and learned counsel for Union of India through N.C.B.

¶15

The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with C2A (NCB) Case No. 01/2025 arising out of NCB/PZU/V/05/2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 18(b), 22(c) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, pending in the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Vaishali.

¶16

As per the prosecution, recovery of 8 kg. opium has been made which is the subject matter of the present case through which subsequent link was found by the Investigating

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85705 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026 2/3

¶18

Team and subsequent recovery of 6.8 kg of opium and 2.1 kg of powder (Amphetamine) has been made from the room of petitioner and his brother which they have taken on rent.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he unnecessarily been made accused in this case. Counsel submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the person from whose possession the alleged recovery has been made is his brother. He submits that the petitioner is a law student living at Muzaffarpur. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

¶20

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India through N.C.B opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it is true that accused Rajnish has been arrested from the place of occurrence. He submits that a counter affidavit has been filed in this case, in which it is stated that conversations took place with the main accused person from whom the recovery has been made. There was a direct telephonic communication between them. He submits that the landlord of the room from which the recovery has been made

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85705 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026 3/3

¶23

has categorically stated that the petitioner and his brother were residing in the said room, and that the recovery was effected from that room after breaking the lock in the presence of his brother.

¶24

In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶25

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶26

Divyansh/-

¶27

U T

Manish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Mr. Prayay Amrit, Govt. of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Sukla @ Sanjay Kumar Shukla Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar Patna namely Sri Amrit Lal Meena

Chinta Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Secretary Rural Development

Pradeep Kumar @ Sono Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Achhelal Mahto @ Achche Lal Vs The State of Bihar

Priti Singh Vs The State of Bihar