Patna High Court
Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Kr.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the nature of the NDPS offences and the material evidence preclude the privilege of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated based on a confessional statement of co‑accused made in police custody. The prosecution argued that call detail records showed regular contact between the petitioner and the co‑accused, including on the date of the alleged offence, and that further investigation and interrogation were required. The court noted that confessional statements made in custody are not admissible as evidence but considered the call records as prima facie material linking the petitioner to the drug racket. Given the seriousness of NDPS offences and the material on record, the court was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner in a case under the NDPS Act based on the material evidence presented.
- Whether a confessional statement of an accused made in police custody can be relied upon for granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether call detail records establishing contact with co‑accused constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- confessional statement
- call detail records
- false implication
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19210 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- Ratanpur District- Begusarai
======================================================
Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Kr. Son of Chunchun Singh Resident of Mohalla -
Ballahpur, Ward No.- 3, P.S.- Nayagaon, District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through N.C.B. New Delhi
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c)
and 29 of NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he received information that smack was kept in the
rented premise of Ram Briksha Kumar and landlady is Sudha
Devi, accordingly, the house was raided and 3.340 kg of smack
was recovered, thereafter the informant received an information
that Ram Briksha, Shivam and Kumar Aryan along with other
accused are present near BP High School, accordingly, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19210 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
police force reached the place of occurrence when accused fled
but two accused were apprehended who disclosed their as
Shivam and Kumar Aryan and also disclosed the name of Ram
Briksha who fled and further disclosed that Sonu, petitioner,
Raja, Nilesh and Abhash are also involved in the racket.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant based on confessional statement of apprehended
accused in police custody which does not evidentiary value. It is
next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot nor
it is the case of the prosecution that informant had any
information about the petitioner being involved in the
occurrence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits no doubt name
of the petitioner transpired based on confessional statement of
apprehend accused in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value but then from perusal of the order impugned it
would manifest that call detail records are recorded at paragraph
nos. 76 and 210 of the case diary and the same shows that
petitioner was in regular contact with the co-accused persons
including on the date of occurrence. It is thus submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19210 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
case requires to be investigated and interrogation of the
petitioner is required.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP and also taking into consideration the fact that it is a case
under NDPS, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…