Patna High Court
Anup Yadav @ Anoop Yadav @ Anup Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, holding that the charge‑sheet was filed without the required FSL report and without a statutory extension, entitling the accused to default bail under the NDPS Act.
Summary
Anup Yadav was arrested in an NDPS case (Case No. 161 of 2025) after police recovered 4 kg of opium-like substance from co‑accused. The petitioner argued that no narcotic was seized from him, the charge‑sheet was filed without a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report, and no extension was sought for filing the charge‑sheet beyond the statutory 180‑day period. Relying on Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 and the proviso to Section 37(a) of the NDPS Act, the court noted that the prosecution had not applied for an extension and the charge‑sheet was defective. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to default bail and ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties. The bail order was granted as prayed, and the petition was disposed in the petitioner’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 of the NDPS Act due to the charge‑sheet being filed without an FSL report and without an extension of time.
- Whether the absence of any narcotic seizure from the petitioner’s possession justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 18, 21(C), 22(C), 29, 36(a) sub‑clause 4, 37(a), 8
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- default bail
- charge‑sheet delay
- forensic science laboratory report
- commercial quantity
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1472 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2025 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Anup Yadav @ Anoop Yadav @ Anup Kumar Yadav Son of Khemlal Yadav
Resident of Village- Salaiya, P.S.- Bashishth Nagar, Jori, District- Chatra,
(Jharkhand)- 825403
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohd Rustam Hussain, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a
supplementary affidavit and in Paragraph ‘7’ of the affidavit it is
written that P.S. of petitioner is Bashishth Nagar Jori and not
Tori. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this
defect may be ignored.
3. As such, the defect in Paragraph ‘7’ of the
supplementary affidavit is ignored and the P.S. of petitioner
should be read as Jori in place of Tori.
4. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025 arising out of
Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 142 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8, 18, 21(C), 22(C) and 29 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1472 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (in short
‘N.D.P.S.’) Act, 1985.
5. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that police
received a secret information that four persons are sitting in an
orchard and they are having talks regarding sale and purchase of
opium. On this information, two persons were apprehended by
the police, namely, Arjun Paswan and Mantu Paswan and from
their possession 4 kg of opium like substance were recovered.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that the name of this petitioner has been
disclosed by the apprehended two accused persons. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that nothing has
been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather the
recovery, if any, has been made from the possession of co-
accused persons. It has also been submitted that in this case
police has submitted charge-sheet without FSL. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the prayer of the petitioner
is two fold. First is that nothing has been recovered from the
possession of this petitioner and second is that charge-sheet has
been filed without FSL report. Moreover, the petitioner is
languishing in judicial custody since 12.05.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1472 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
submitted that this case is squarely covered with the order
passed by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.
Misc. No. 65898 of 2023, wherein the 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
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.
8. In the present case, the Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has not filed any application for
extension of period of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet as
per the contention of the petitioners has been filed without FSL
report.
9. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed
the prayer of regular bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1472 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
10. 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 court of learned
Exclusive Special Judge court no.1 under NDPS Act, East
Champaran at Motihari in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.
161 of 2025 arising out of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 142 of
2025.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that
one of the bailor should be close relative of the petitioner.
12. The prayer of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is accorded.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…