Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sonu Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail and ordered his release on bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Sonu Kumar Ray, sought bail in an NDPS case (Sections 20(b) and 22) where 77.76 kg of ganja was seized from a Tata Nexon. He contended that he was merely a passenger and that no contraband was found on him, and that the charge‑sheet was filed without the mandatory forensic science laboratory (FSL) report. The petitioner also argued that the charge‑sheet was filed beyond the statutory 180‑day period without any extension application by the Special Public Prosecutor, invoking the default‑bail provision under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 and Section 37(a) of the NDPS Act. The State opposed the bail. After considering the delay, lack of FSL report, and the petitioner’s limited involvement, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 of the NDPS Act due to delay in filing the charge‑sheet beyond 180 days without an extension.
  • Whether the absence of an FSL report in the charge‑sheet warrants bail.
  • Whether the petitioner’s role as a mere passenger justifies bail despite the large quantity of narcotics seized.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • default bail
  • charge‑sheet delay
  • FSL report
  • judicial custody
  • excise case
  • commercial quantity

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21867 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-501 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Sonu Kumar Ray, S/o Sheo Kumar Ray @ Shiv Kumar Ray, R/o Village -
                 Bhawani Tola, P.O - Rampur Diyara, P.S - Maner, District - Patna

                                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Madya Nished Excise P.S. Case No. 501 of 2025 registered

                   for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) and 22 of the

                   N.D.P.S. Act.

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

                   Tata Nexon Car, altogether 77.760 Kg. of ganja was recovered.

                   As per the case of the prosecution, after seeing the police, two

                   persons from the car started fleeing away. They were identified

                   as Sonu Kumar Ray and Chhotu @ Prince.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                   committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21867 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                            2/4




          case. It has further been submitted that in F.I.R. also this

          petitioner has disclosed that he has taken lift in that car. It has

          further been submitted that earlier the bail petition of this

          petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated

          24.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68121 of 2025 with an

          observation that petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after

          six months if the trial is not concluded. It has further been

          submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that till today,

          only charge has been framed. Further submission of learned

          counsel for the petitioner is that from perusal of Annexure-P/3,

          the charge-sheet, it will transpire that charge-sheet was filed

          without the F.S.L. report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

          submitted that his prayer is two fold. First is that he has only

          taken lift in that car and nothing has been recovered from his

          possession and second is that the charge-sheet has been filed

          without the F.S.L. report. Petitioner is languishing in judicial

          custody since 11.05.2025.

                       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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21867 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                            3/4




          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, 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 appearing for the State has

          vehemently opposed the application for bail.

                       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
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21867 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                                         4/4




                       of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

                       Principal District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in connection

                       with Madya Nished Excise P.S. Case No. 501 of 2025.


                                             (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.