Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Pawan PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing him to furnish a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Summary

Pawan Prasad applied for bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act (Sections 20(B), ii C, 23(c) and 29) where 88.7 kg of ganja was seized from a poultry farm owned by Anil Kumar Yadav. The prosecution alleged that the seized contraband was linked to the petitioner, while the petitioner contended that he was merely a chicken seller who happened to be at the farm to purchase poultry and that no narcotics were found on his person. He further argued that the statement recorded in the FIR was not his own and that he has no prior criminal record, having been in judicial custody since 10‑10‑2025. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. After hearing both sides, the Court found the petitioner’s claim credible and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of equal amount.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a non‑bailable offence under the NDPS Act.
  • Whether the petitioner’s alleged presence at the poultry farm constitutes sufficient grounds for continued detention.
  • Whether the absence of any narcotic material in the petitioner’s possession and his lack of prior criminal record justify bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • drug seizure
  • presumption of innocence
  • non‑bailable offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12520 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-491 Year-2025 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Pawan Prasad S/O Rambabu Prasad @ Dileep Prasad R/O Village- Fatuha,
                 PS- Chhauradano, Distt.- East Champaran.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   27-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025, N.D.P.S. G.R. Case

                   No. 141 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under

                   Sections 20(B), ii C, 23(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

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

                   the poultry farm of one Anil Kumar Yadav, altogether 88.7 kg of

                   ganja like contraband was recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                   committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

                   case. He also submits that the petitioner is a chicken seller and
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12520 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     he has gone to the poultry farm for purchasing chicken; as he

                     was there, he was apprehended by the police. He also submits

                     that nothing has been recovered from the possession of this

                     petitioner. The statement, which is recorded in the FIR, was

                     extracted by police. It is not the statement of the petitioner. He

                     further submits that a statement has been made in para 3 of the

                     petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is

                     languishing in judicial custody since 10.10.2025.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State.

                                  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 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                     bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                     of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

                     Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in connection

                     with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025, N.D.P.S. G.R. Case

                     No. 141 of 2025.


                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.