Patna High Court
Saroj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, finding that the statutory requirements for filing the charge‑sheet were not met.
Summary
Saroj Kumar was arrested after police stopped a car carrying 5.6 kg of charas-like material, which they recovered from the vehicle, not from his person. He contended that he was neither the owner nor the driver, that the seizure list lacked his signature, and that the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and filed the charge‑sheet without a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report. The prosecution had not sought an extension of the 180‑day period for filing the charge‑sheet under Sections 36(a) and 37(a) of the NDPS Act. Relying on a prior Patna High Court decision granting default bail when the charge‑sheet is not filed within the statutory period, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. Consequently, the court ordered his release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to default/regular bail under the NDPS Act when the charge‑sheet was filed beyond the 180‑day period without an extension.
- Whether the charge‑sheet filed without an FSL report and without compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS renders the detention unlawful.
- Whether the seizure of contraband from the vehicle, not from the petitioner’s possession, affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act (BNSS) — 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 science laboratory report
- seizure
- Section 105
- commercial quantity
- procedural lapse
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1549 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2025 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Saroj Kumar S/O Bharat Yadav Resident of village- Bhaudwa Tola, Ward no.
9, P.S.- Nakardei, Dist.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, 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. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 arising out of
Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No. 115 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 8 and 20(B)(II)(C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (in short
‘N.D.P.S.’) Act, 1985.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that police
received a secret information that contraband is being carried on
a four wheeler. On this information police started checking the
vehicles. When white colored car having Registration No. BR
09L2197 was coming in a high speed. It had only one person in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1549 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/5
the car. The vehicle was stopped and the driver started fleeing
away who was apprehended. He was identified as the petitioner
and he disclosed that he is going to sell the charas like material
which has been purchased from Nepal and is being carried to
Haryana and from the car altogether 5.600 kg charas like
contraband was recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner. Recovery has been made from the car. As per the case
of the prosecution, the petitioner has fled out of the car and was
apprehended. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is
neither owner nor the driver of the car. The witnesses of the
seizure list are police personnel. While making search police has
not complied Section 105 of the BNSS. It has also been
submitted that from perusal of the seizure list it will transpire
that the seizure list does not bear signature of the petitioner,
whereas the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was
apprehended there.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that in this case police has submitted charge-sheet
without the FSL report and from perusal of the FIR it is clear
that the police party who has apprehended the petitioner was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1549 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/5
having any kit to detect as to whether the object which was
recovered is opium or not. That is why in the FIR it is written
that opium like substance was recovered. In this case, the
charge-sheet was filed on 15.10.2025 and from perusal of the
Annexure-2/1, the certified copy of the order sheet of the
learned trial court.
6. It is clear that from perusal of the order dated
03.11.2025 that the learned trial court has directed the office to
call for the report of FSL from the concerned office. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this order sheet
goes to show that till 03.11.2025, the FSL report was not
available. Order dated 01.11.2025 is very specific wherein there
is endorsement to the effect that this record received on
transferred from the court of learned Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Motihari along with FIR case diary without FSL
report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that his prayer 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.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that this case is squarely covered with the order
passed by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1549 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
4/5
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.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1549 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
5/5
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
Sessions Judge/Speical Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in
connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 arising out of
Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No. 115 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…