Patna High Court
Niraj Kumar Paswan @ Neeraj Kumar Paswan @ Neeraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that default bail applies as the charge‑sheet was filed without an FSL report and no extension under Section 37(a) was sought.
Summary
The petitioner, Niraj Kumar Paswan, was charged under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for the alleged seizure of 28 kg of ganja from a machaan. His earlier bail application was rejected, but he filed a fresh petition arguing that the charge‑sheet was filed without the mandatory forensic scientific laboratory (FSL) report, that no narcotics were found in his personal possession, and that the prosecution had not sought an extension of the 180‑day period for filing the charge‑sheet under Section 37(a). The court examined the provisions of Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 and the proviso to Section 37(a) of the NDPS Act, noting that default bail is available when the charge‑sheet is not filed within 180 days without a valid extension. Since no extension was filed and the charge‑sheet lacked the FSL report, the court found merit in the bail petition. Consequently, the court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, directing the petitioner’s release.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the charge‑sheet is filed without the required FSL report.
- Whether default bail under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 of the NDPS Act applies when the charge‑sheet is not filed within 180 days and no extension is sought.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance of police witnesses with Section 105 of the BNSS affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act — s. 105
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 36(a) sub‑clause 4, 37(a), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- default bail
- charge sheet
- forensic report
- commercial quantity
- Section 105 BNSS
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11032 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- Bathnaha District- Araria
======================================================
Niraj Kumar Paswan @ Neeraj Kumar Paswan @ Neeraj Kumar S/o Bahadur
Paswan R/o Village - Jimrahi, Ward No. 2, P.S - Bathnaha, District - Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 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 8 and 20(b)
(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (in
short ‘NDPS’) Act, 1985.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that below a
machaan from two gunny bags, altogether 28 kg of ganja like
intoxicant was recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected vide order
dated 01.09.2025. Learned counsel has filed this petition as
similarly situated accused of another case has been granted bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11032 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 81118 of 2025 dated
29.01.2026 having identical circumstances.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that in this case charge-sheet was filed without the FSL report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
nothing has been recovered from the possession of this
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that as the witnesses of the seizure list are police
personnel, they have not complied Section 105 of the BNSS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing
in judicial custody since 05.04.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his
prayer is two fold; first is that nothing has been recovered from
the conscious possession of this petitioner and second is that the
charge sheet has been filed without FSL report.
7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on an order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84487 of
2024 and in that order, this court has relied on an order of the
learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No.
65898 of 2023 wherein the learned co-ordinate Bench has
opined that from reading of Section 36(a) sub-clause 4 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11032 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
NDPS Act, it appears that in the case of offence punishable
under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27(a) or for offences
involving commercial quantity, the charge-sheet can be
submitted within 180 days and if the charge-sheet is not
submitted within 180 days, the accused person is entitled for
default bail. The proviso to Section 37(a) speaks that public
prosecutor may take an extension of time for filing the charge-
sheet and 180 days time can be extended for a period up to one
year. After the public prosecutor files that progress report of the
investigation and gives specific reasons for detention of the
accused beyond the said period of 180 days. In the present case,
the Special Public Prosecutor has not filed any application for
extension of period of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet as
per the contention of the petitioner has been filed without FSL
report.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the bail.
9. 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
Spl (NDPS) Case No. 135 of 2025 arising out of Bathnaha P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11032 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
Case No. 28 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of 10,000/- (ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
NDPS Act, Araria.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…