Patna High Court
RahulversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail, holding that the petitioner is entitled to default bail as the charge‑sheet was filed without the required FSL report and no extension was sought.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul, was arrested as the driver of a vehicle from which 80 kg of ganja was seized. He sought regular bail, contending that the seized contraband was not in his possession, he had no knowledge of it, and the charge‑sheet was filed on 13‑01‑2025 before the forensic laboratory (FSL) report was received on 21‑06‑2025. The prosecution had not filed any application for an extension of the statutory 180‑day period for filing the charge‑sheet under Sections 36(a) and 37 of the NDPS Act. Relying on prior High Court judgments and the Supreme Court’s decision in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, the court held that prolonged detention without justification infringes Article 21 and that default bail is available when the charge‑sheet is delayed without extension. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner regular bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 36(a) of the NDPS Act due to the charge‑sheet being filed without the FSL report and beyond the 180‑day period.
- Whether the absence of an extension application by the public prosecutor bars bail.
- Whether prolonged detention violates the petitioner’s fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 36(a) sub-clause 4, 37(a), 37 sub-clause 1(b), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- default bail
- charge-sheet delay
- Article 21
- fundamental rights
- forensic report
- narcotics
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14682 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rahul S/O Sri Prahlad R/O Village - Fakauli P. S. - Awatarnagar Dist. - Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
9 16-03-2026 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 & 20(b)
(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that
altogether 80 kg of ganja was recovered from the vehicle which
was being driven by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that his prayer is two fold; first is that nothing has been
recovered from his possession and second is that he was having
no knowledge about the alleged contraband. It has further been
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
only the driver and he was only carrying the consignment. It has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14682 of 2025(9) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
in this case the charge-sheet was filed without the FSL report
and for showing this he has filed a supplementary affidavit in
which he has annexed the entire order sheet of the learned trial
court. From perusal of the said order it transpires that the
charge-sheet was filed on 13.01.2025 whereas FSL report was
received in the trial court on 21.06.2025. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that charge-sheet was filed by the
I.O. prior to the FSL report. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal
antecedent and he is in custody since 21.07.2024.
5. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14682 of 2025(9) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
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.
6. In the case of Rabi Prakash vs. the State of
Odisha, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the prolonged
incarceration generally militate against the most precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and in such situation, the conditional
liberty must override the statutory embargo created under
Section 37 sub-clause 1(b) of the NDPS Act. The charge-sheet
filed without FSL report does not ipso facto creates any
embargo against the fundamental right of a citizen enshrined in
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
7. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14682 of 2025(9) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
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
Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.209 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Sitamarhi.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…