Patna High Court
Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Prasad JaiswalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding no sufficient evidence to justify continued detention.
Summary
Surendra Prasad Jaiswal applied for bail in a case under Sections 21(c), 22, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated through a co‑accused’s confessional statement. The prosecution’s case relied on the seizure of large quantities of Noophin, Phenargan and Diazepam injections from a co‑accused, but no incriminating material was found in Jaiswal’s possession. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, is a licensed pharmaceutical businessman, and that the police raid was conducted in his absence without any violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. An earlier anticipatory bail application had been rejected, and the State opposed bail on the ground of alleged involvement in the sale of prohibited psychotropic substances. Considering the lack of direct evidence, the petitioner’s clean record and the principle of parity with a co‑accused who had already been granted bail, the Court decided to release him on bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, Surendra Prasad Jaiswal, is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the NDPS offences alleged against him.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 22, 25, 29, 42, 50
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- psychotropic substances
- false implication
- drug trafficking
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16912 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- JITNA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Prasad Jaiswal Son of Late Gopal Prasad @
Late Gopal Prasad Jaiswal Resident of Mohalla - Purnahiya Kothi, Ward No.-
6, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Raj, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jitna
P.S. case No. 05 of 2025 (N.D.P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025)
instituted for the offences under Sections 21(c), 22, 25, 29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the police has recovered
total 296 pieces of Noophin Injection (2 ml each), 297 pieces of
Phenargan Injection (2 ml each), 297 pieces of Diazepam
Injection (2 ml each) from the possession of co-accused Vikash
Kumar Yadav.
4. Earlier the anticipatory bail application of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16912 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
petitioner has been rejected by this Bench vide order dated
31.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 56426 of
2025 considering the nature of accusation made against the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due
to connivance of local medical dealers with the investigating
agency. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name
has transpired in this case in course of investigation on the basis
of the confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused
Vikash Kumar Yadav recorded before the police which has no
evidentiary value in the eye of law. Charge-sheet has been
submitted in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2025
and has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is a businessman
who deals in Pharmaceutical/Medicine and the name of the Firm
of the petitioner is ‘Satyam Enterprises’ having valid License.
The Police team raided the house of the petitioner in the mid
night in the absence of petitioner. There is no allegation of
tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Nothing
incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession
of the petitioner. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50
of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16912 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
submits that the co-accused Satyam Jaiswal @ Satya Jaiswal
has already been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated
02.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19261 of 2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the State further submitted that the petitioner is
engaged in sale of prohibited psychotropic substance, which are
dangerous and injuries to the society as a whole and, thus, the
petitioner does not deserve bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, clean antecedent, the period of custody undergone
by the petitioner as also the prayer for bail being based on
parity, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Jitna P.S. case No. 05
of 2025 (N.D.P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025).
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…