Patna High Court
Chhotelal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
In the absence of any incriminating material beyond the co‑accused’s disclosure, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Chhotelal Yadav was named in an FIR for alleged offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after co‑accused Ravi Kumar Rai, who was caught with 20.5 kg of ganja, disclosed his name. The petitioner argued that the disclosure was the sole basis for his implication, that he had no connection with the seized vehicle, and that the investigation was otherwise complete. He contended that there was no material to establish his mental culpability under Section 35 of the NDPS Act, rendering Section 37 inapplicable. The State opposed the anticipatory bail, relying on the co‑accused’s statement. The Court held that, in the absence of any incriminating evidence beyond the co‑accused’s disclosure, anticipatory bail was appropriate and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon surrender, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the disclosure of the petitioner’s name by a co‑accused constitutes sufficient material to justify his arrest under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the petitioner can be said to have the requisite mental culpability under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the absence of corroborative evidence.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 35, 37, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- mental culpability
- co‑accused disclosure
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19374 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2024 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan
======================================================
Chhotelal Yadav S/o- Yamuna Rai Village- Rasulpur Chakari Takipur
PS- Daraundha District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
Mr.Pranav Bhaskar, Advocate
Mr.Anubhav Vatsa, Advocate
Mr.Sumit Kumar, Advocate
Ms.Ritika Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Daraundha P.S.
Case No. 349 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 8, 20(b)/(ii)/(c)/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. As per FIR, name of the petitioner was disclosed by
apprehended co-accused namely, Ravi Kumar Rai, who was
found in possession of 20.5 Kg. Ganja.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that save and except suspicion arising
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19374 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
out of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused, nothing
incriminating appears against this petitioner.
5. It is submitted that petitioner also not connected in
any manner with the vehicle in question from where the
alleged contraband was recovered. It is pointed out that due
to land dispute name of the petitioner disclosed by the
apprehended co-accused Ravi Kumar Rai.
6. It is submitted that police, after investigation,
submitted charge-sheet qua apprehended co-accused and,
therefore, there is nothing further to investigate in this matter
as almost on all aspects, investigation of this case appears
concluded and, therefore, any further custodial interrogation
of this petitioner is not required.
7. Arguing further, it is submitted that during
investigation nothing appears corroborated to the extent
which may confirm the disclosure statement of apprehended
co-accused prima-facie as to suggest that petitioner was
under mental culpability qua possession of contraband, in
view of section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act and, in absence of
same, import of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19374 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
convincing in this case.
8. Explaining criminal antecedent, it is pointed out that
petitioner was found involved in one petty offence i.e. excise,
in which he is on bail, except one case, petitioner is not the
accused in any other case.
9. Learned counsel also relied upon the order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as passed in the matter of Radhe
Mahto @ Aditya Kumar Vs. State of Bihar through SLP
(Cri.) No. 9509 of 2025.
10. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that
name of petitioner was disclosed by apprehended co-accused
Ravi Kumar Rai.
11. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as prima-facie save and except
suspicion arising out of disclosure made by apprehended co-
accused, nothing incriminating appears against the petitioner,
where almost in all respect the investigation of this case
appears completed, accordingly, above-named petitioner, in
the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19374 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
from this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Siwan/concerned court in
connection with Daraundha P.S. Case No. 349 of 2024,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”), and further condition:
(I) That petitioner shall not indulge in any similar
nature of offence till conclusion of trial and, shall
cooperate in investigation, if any.
(II) That petitioner shall not made any attempt
to delay trial, failing so, the State/informant
shall be at liberty to move before the Trial Court
itself for the cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner, which shall be decided by trial court
itself after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…