Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6975 (PAT)

Ravish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./90029/2025 · 2026-07-13

Sandeep Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89090 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-423 Year-2025 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Manoj Singh S/o Ramdeo Singh @ Ramdev Singh R/o Village - Chak Ward No. 12, (Chak, Chhitraur), Post - Chhitraur, P.S - Matihani, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 90029 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-423 Year-2025 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Ravish Kumar Son of Manoj Singh Village -Nayagaon, Ward No 5, PS -Matihani, District -Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89090 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 90029 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6 13-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Ballia P.S. Case No. 423/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 111 of B.N.S. and Sections 8(c), 21(c), 18(c), 29 and 31 of N.D.P.S. Act. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2025(6) dt.13-07-2026 2/2 3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners are alleged to be involved in illegal business of sale and purchase of smack. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. Learned counsel further submits that they have no criminal antecedent and they are in custody since 07.10.2025. The petitioners undertake to co-operate in the case/ trial. 5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners and submitted that the recovered smack from the petitioners is more than the intermediate quantity. 6. Considering the fact that petitioners are drug peddlers, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, these applications stand dismissed. tusharika/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U