Patna High Court
Vishal Uraon @ Vishal WraonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to default bail and ordered his release on bail.
Summary
Vishal Uraon was arrested in a NDNDPS case for possession of 517.54 grams of brown sugar. The charge‑sheet was filed without the mandatory forensic science laboratory (FSL) report and beyond the statutory 180‑day period, with no extension sought by the public prosecutor. The petitioner argued that the earlier bail denial was erroneous and that the procedural defaults entitled him to default bail under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 and the proviso to Section 37(a) of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. After considering the delay and lack of compliance, the Patna High Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, directing compliance with the conditions of the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Purnea.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under the NDPS Act due to the charge‑sheet being filed after the 180‑day period without an extension.
- Whether the absence of the FSL report and non‑compliance with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S vitiates the charge‑sheet and justifies bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(c), 25, 29, 36(a) sub‑clause 4, 37(a), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- default bail
- charge‑sheet delay
- FSL report
- procedural lapse
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20530 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia
======================================================
Vishal Uraon @ Vishal Wraon, S/O Late Munna Uraon, Resident of village-
Rambag, Driver Tola, P.S.- Sadar, District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 84 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S.
Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the
bag of this petitioner, altogether 517.54 grams of brown
sugar/smack like contraband was recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that earlier the bail petition of this petitioner was
rejected by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 09.07.2025. It has further been submitted that the seizure list
witnesses are police personnel. Police has not complied Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20530 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
105 of B.N.S.S while making the seizure. It has further been
submitted that in this case, police has filed charge-sheet without
without the F.S.L. report and even the learned trial Court has taken
cognizance without the F.S.L. report. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has filed the certified copy of the charge-sheet which
goes to show that on the date of filing of the charge-sheet, the
F.S.L. report was not received. Petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 03.04.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an
order passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 57651 of 2025 and in
that order, this Court has relied on an order of learned Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65898 of 2023,
wherein the 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20530 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
accused beyond the said period of 180 days. In the present case,
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 petitioners have been filed without FSL
report.
6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the application for bail and has submitted that petitioner is having
criminal antecedent of two cases.
7. 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 learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Purnea in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 84 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…