Patna High Court

Hemant Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.

Summary

Hemant Kumar Yadav was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 18.55 g of contraband. The petitioner contended that no contraband was recovered from him and that the police seizure violated Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. He also highlighted that the quantity seized was far below commercial levels and that he had been in judicial custody since 29‑Oct‑2025. The State opposed bail, citing four prior criminal cases, one of which involved a similar offence. After hearing both sides, the Court granted bail on the condition that the petitioner not commit similar offences, cooperate with the trial, appear in court on every date, and furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where contraband has allegedly been seized.
Whether the seizure complied with the procedural requirements of Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act — s. 105
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 29, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
seizure procedure
Section 105
criminal antecedent
judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18698 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Hemant Kumar Yadav S/O Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav Resident of
                 Vill.- Baghmara, Ward no. 7, P.S.- K. Nagar, District- Purnea
                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   24-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No.462 of 2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b) & 29 of the NDPS Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that

                   altogether 18.55 gm of smack like contraband has been recovered

                   from the possession of the petitioner.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession

                   of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

                   submitted that the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel

                   and police have not complied Section 105 of the BNSS while

                   making seizure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

                   submitted that the alleged recovery of the contraband is though
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18698 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                      more than small quantity but is much less than the commercial

                      quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted

                      that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.10.2025.

                                   5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                      for the State and he has submitted that the petitioner is having

                      criminal antecedent of four cases out of which one is of similar

                      nature.

                                   6. 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 with the condition that

                      the petitioner shall not indulge in similar nature of offences and

                      shall also co-operate in the trial and shal remain physically

                      present on each and every date in the learned trial court. 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in connection

                      with Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No.462 of 2025.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…