Patna High Court
Bikau YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied as the Section 37 bar remained applicable and no new ground was presented to merit a different decision.
Summary
Bikau Yadav was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the NDPS Act, with contraband exceeding commercial quantity. He applied for regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial on the ground of a Section 37 embargo. The petitioner argued that he had been in judicial custody since October 2024 without a forensic‑science‑lab report and that none of the charge‑sheeted witnesses had been examined. The State contended that the bar under Section 37 remains applicable and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Arif Khan v. State (NCT Delhi) 2023, which held that a charge‑sheet is valid without an FSL report and no automatic bail is permitted. The Court found no new ground to revisit the bail issue, noted the trial was ongoing, and consequently rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the seized contraband exceeds commercial quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes a bar.
- Whether the absence of a forensic‑science‑lab report and the non‑examination of charge‑sheeted witnesses justify granting bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arif Khan v. State (NCT Delhi) 2023 is binding on bail decisions in similar NDPS cases.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 22, 23, 37
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- Section 37
- contraband
- forensic report
- trial delay
- commercial quantity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25819 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2024 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Bikau Yadav S/O Late Makhan Yadav R/o Village Bhagwatipur, P.S-
Ladaniya, Distt.- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 356 of 2024, instituted for the offences
under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the NDPS Act.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated
10.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42104 of 2025 taking into
consideration the recovery of contraband beyond the
commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 24.10.2024
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25819 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/2
antecedent. Learned counsel also submits that charge-sheet has
been submitted in this case without FSL report. Charge has
already been framed against the petitioner on 22.07.2025 but out
of four charge-sheeted witnesses, no any witness has been
examined in this case.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is next submitted
that the recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity,
hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is
further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the
case of Arif Khan v. State (NCT Delhi) 2023, that charge-sheet is
valid without FSL and no automatic default bail is permitted.
6. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. It appears that the trial is going on.
7. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.