Patna High Court

Santosh Kumar MandalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Santosh Kumar Mandal applied for regular bail in a case under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act, alleging that no narcotic substances were recovered from his possession. The prosecution’s case is based on a large seizure of cough syrup containing codeine and other Schedule H drugs from co‑accused, and the petitioner’s name appearing in their statements as the alleged shop owner. The petitioner contended he is not the shop owner, nothing was seized from him, and the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the BNSS during the seizure. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal case against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the court found the lack of direct possession and procedural lapses sufficient to grant bail, ordering the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act when no narcotics were recovered from his possession.
Whether the petitioner’s alleged ownership of the shop and statements of co‑accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Whether non‑compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS during seizure affects the bail decision.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act — s. 105
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 22

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
Section 20
Section 22
schedule H drug
seizure procedure
Section 105 BNSS
criminal antecedent
regular bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10525 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2025 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Santosh Kumar Mandal S/O Ramlalit mandal R/O Village- Pipraun, P.S-
                 Harlakhi, Distt.- Madhubani.                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar                           ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Akash Raj, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey , APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20 & 22 of

                   the NDPS Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from

                   the possession of co-accused persons huge amount of cough

                   syrup codeine and other tablets which are Schedule H drug were

                   recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   nothing has been recovered from his possession. The name of

                   this petitioner has surfaced in the statement of co-accused

                   persons who have said that the petitioner is also owner of the

                   shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a

                   matter of fact the petitioner is not the owner of that shop and
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10525 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      nothing has been recovered from the possession of this

                      petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

                      submitted that the witnesses of the seizure list are police

                      personnel and the police has not complied Section 105 of the

                      BNSS. The seizure was made from co-accused Surendra Kumar,

                      Virendra Kumar Shah, Vidyasagar Mahto. Learned counsel for

                      the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is languishing in

                      judicial custody since 19.12.2025.

                                   5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                      the bail and has submitted that the petitioner is having criminal

                      antecedent of one case.

                                   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 released on bail in connection with

                      Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of

                      Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                      each to the satisfaction of learned court of ADJ-IV, Madhubani.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…