Patna High Court
Surendra Kumar @ Surendra BindversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the forensic report substantiated the prosecution's allegation of ganja possession.
Summary
The petitioners, including Chandrika Prasad and Om Prakash, sought anticipatory bail in a case (Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 900 of 2025) where they were implicated under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act for allegedly planting ganja on their land. The prosecution alleged that a confidential informant reported the planting, leading to a raid and seizure of the plants, which the Forensic Science Laboratory later confirmed to be ganja. The petitioners contended that the seized plants were not in their conscious possession and that they did not own the land, arguing that the police had named them merely to implicate them. The court examined the forensic report and the submissions of both sides, concluding that the evidence supported the prosecution's claim. Consequently, the court denied anticipatory bail, rejected the petitions, and directed that the petitioners surrender within four weeks for a prompt trial disposition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act when forensic evidence confirms the presence of ganja.
- Whether the lack of ownership or conscious possession of the land can defeat the charge under the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(a)(i)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 20(a)(i)
- forensic report
- seizure of narcotics
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13095 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-900 Year-2025 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Chandrika Prasad S/O Late Jagabandan Prasad @ Jagnandan Prasad R/O
Village- Pakari, P.S- Masaurhi, Distt.- Patna.
2. Om Prakash S/O Janak Yadav R/O Village- Pakari, P.S- Masaurhi, Distt.-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11414 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-900 Year-2025 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Bind S/o Rajeshwar Yadav R/o Village- Pakri,
PS- Masaurhi, Distt.- Patna
2. Lalu Kumar @ Ramakant Kumar S/o Dularchand Bind R/o Village- Pakri,
PS- Masaurhi, Distt.- Patna
3. Janardan Prasad @ Lali Bind @ Lali Prasad S/o Musafir Bind @ Mushafir
Jamadar R/o Village- Pakri, PS- Masaurhi, Distt.- Patna
4. Karu Bind S/o Late Sitaram Bind R/o Village- Pakri, PS- Masaurhi, Distt.-
Patna
5. Lalji Bind S/o Devki Bind R/o Village- Pakri, PS- Masaurhi, Distt.- Patna
6. Pramod Bind S/o Lalji Bind R/o Village- Pakri, PS- Masaurhi, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13095 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11414 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar, APP
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 24-06-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13095 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta, Ms. Jyoti
Kumari as also Mr. Amit Kumar for the petitioner and Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Singh and Mrs. Madhuri Lata in the two cases.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 900 of 2025 for the offence
registered under sections 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on confidential information that some accused persons have
planted ganja like plants in their respective land, the place was
raided and the recovery/seizure made which is part of the
seizure list. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Earlier, a Co-ordinate Bench directed the State to
file counter affidavit on the point whether it has been
ascertained that the plant seized has been found to be ganja or
not. Accordingly, the counter affidavit duly signed by the ASP,
Masaurhi-1 has come and the FSL report dated 16.01.2026
shows that the plant indeed have been found to be ganja.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner duly
assisted by other learned counsels submit that nothing has been
recovered from their conscious possession but the Police in a
zeal to implicate, has named them. Further, they can show that
they do not own the land.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13095 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
6. Learned APP submits that these are the facts which
can be presented as and when they surrender and seek bail. They
are before this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail and the
Forensic report indicates the allegation made in the FIR to be
true.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
as also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna,
anticipatory bail cannot be extended to them.
8. The two petitions accordingly stand rejected.
9. However, if the petitioners surrender within four
weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take up the matter
and dispose it of preferably on the same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.