IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29312 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2022 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya ====================================================== Ishwari Yadav, son of Dashrath Yadav, Resident of Village- Jahjawa, Tola Sewai, P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gaya, ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 07-05-2025 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(b), 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the present in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 66525 of 2022 alongwith one Ashok Kumar Yadav, however, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner came to be negated vide order dated 16.01.2023, considering the fact that the petitioner was found involved in cultivating the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29312 of 2025(2) dt.07-05-2025 2/2 opium (afeem plants) over the forest land. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner after some argument fairly submitted that though the land from where opium plants were recovered, does not belong to the petitioner, nor is any how connected, coupled with the fair antecedent, but this fact cannot be denied that there is no substantive change in the facts and circumstances. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that since there is no substantive change in facts and circumstances, therefore, the subsequent anticipatory bail application is not maintable. 6. Be that as it may, taking note of the afore-noted facts that there is no subsequent substantive change in facts and circumstances, this Court is not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail application stands rejected. supratim/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T