Patna High Court
Pankaj YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that the procedural defaults entitled him to default bail under the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Yadav, sought bail in an NDPS case where 50 kg of ganja was seized from the rear seat of a tempo. He contended that he was neither the owner nor the driver and that no contraband was found in his possession. The petitioner argued that the seizure violated Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and that the charge‑sheet was filed without the mandatory forensic laboratory report, with no extension sought under Section 37(a) of the NDPS Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedent granting bail to long‑detained accused and on the High Court’s earlier rulings on default bail after 180 days, the court examined whether the procedural defaults warranted bail. The court held that the procedural lapses justified granting bail and ordered the petitioner to be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act given the procedural deficiencies in the seizure and charge‑sheet.
- Whether the absence of a forensic laboratory report and failure to seek an extension under Section 37(a) entitles the accused to default bail.
- Whether the seizure complied with Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act — s. 105
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29, 36(a) sub‑clause 4, 37(a), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- default bail
- charge‑sheet delay
- forensic laboratory report
- Section 105
- commercial quantity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17801 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2024 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Pankaj Yadav S/o Bilayati Yadav R/o Village- Bari Balia, Ward No.06, P.S-
Baliya, Dist- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 26-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with NDPS Case No.61 of 2024 arising out of
Cheriyabariyarpur P.S. Case No.189 of 2024 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of
the NDPS Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from
the rear seat of a tempo, altogether 50 kg of ganja was
recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is neither the owner nor
the driver of the tempo. He was just sitting on the rear seat. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17801 of 2026(3) dt.26-03-2026
2/4
has further been submitted that nothing has been recovered from
the possession of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that the witnesses of the seizure
list are police personnel and police has not complied Section
105 of the BNSS while making seizure. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted tha the petitioner is in judicial
custody since 28.10.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divyas
Bardewa vs. Narcotic Control Bureau wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under :-
“That aspect of the matter, at this juncture,
need not be gone into, since the said issue is
pending consideration in a batch of petitions
which would take sometime for hearing and
this petition is also to be considered along
with those petitions. For the present, we note,
that even in the other pending cases before
this Court, in SLP(Crl) Nos. 8164-8166/2021
and other similar petitions, without reference
to the statutory bail, taking note that the
petitioners have been in custody for sometime
and the trial would take some more time to
conclude, we had directed grant of bail to the
petitioners.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that in this case charge-sheet was filed without FSL report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17801 of 2026(3) dt.26-03-2026
3/4
which is apparent from the charge-sheet which has been filed by
him through supplementary affidavit wherein the I.O. has
categorically recorded that the contraband has been sent to
Kolkata and Bhagalpur FSL but the FSL report is still not
available.
7. In this regard, 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 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17801 of 2026(3) dt.26-03-2026
4/4
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.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the bail.
9. 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
Additional Session Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act,
Begusarai in connection with NDPS Case No.61 of 2024 arising
out of Cheriyabariyarpur P.S. Case No.189 of 2024.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…