Patna High Court
Pappu Singh @ Sushil Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to regular bail and the application is allowed.
Summary
The petitioners, four relatives, were charged under Sections 8(b) and 18(b) of the NDPS Act for alleged poppy cultivation on land that they claim is ancestral property of their grandfather and not in their possession. The FIR lacks details on the quantity of poppy plants and the exact area cultivated, making it unclear whether the alleged crop falls within the small‑quantity category. The petitioners argued they have no criminal antecedents and that a co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail application. After considering the submissions and the absence of specific evidence linking the petitioners to the cultivation, the Court ordered regular bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties for each petitioner, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under the NDPS Act despite the nature of the alleged offence.
- Whether the lack of specific details on quantity and area of poppy cultivation in the FIR affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the prior grant of bail to a co‑accused influences the bail application of the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners' custody since 18‑08‑2025 and absence of criminal antecedents justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 18(b), 8(b)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- poppy cultivation
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- small quantity
- ancestral land
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2683 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- Geedha District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Pappu Singh @ Sushil Kumar Singh S/o Late Birendra Pratap Singh @
Lalan Singh Resident of -Khesarahiya, P.S - Gidha, District - Bhojpur
(Arrah)
2. Lal Babu Singh @ Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Singh @
Mahendra Singh Resident of - Khesarahiya, P.S - Gidha, District - Bhojpur
(Arrah)
3. Rinku Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Kamta Prasad Singh Resident
of - Khesarahiya, P.S - Gidha, District - Bhojpur (Arrah)
4. Bhuwan Singh @ Rajeshwar Singh S/o Late Paras Nath Singh Resident of -
Khesarahiya, P.S - Gidha, District - Bhojpur (Arrah)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek regular bail in Gidha P.S. Case
No. 43 of 2025 dated 15-02-2025, registered under Sections
8(b) and 18(b) of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during routine
patrolling, the police received secret information regarding
illegal poppy cultivation. On the basis of such information, a
raid was conducted and poppy plants were found on seven
plots of land.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2683 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in
the present case. It is further submitted that the land, in-
question, where the alleged illegal cultivation took place is
ancestral property of the petitioners and is not partitioned. The
said land is registered in the name of the petitioners’
grandfather. The petitioners are living with their parents
separately from his grandfather and have no concern with the
land in-question from where the opium flowers are alleged to
have been seized. It is further submitted that the seizure list does
not disclose the number of poppy plants or the estimated
quantity of the crop, and as such, it cannot be determined
whether the alleged recovery falls within the category of small
quantity or commercial quantity, although there is an assertion
in the FIR to the effect that the cultivation was carried out on a
small plot of land. It is further submitted that the FIR does not
disclose or specify the area of the said plot. Further submission
is that co-accused, namely Satyadev Singh @ Sintu @ Sintu
Kumar has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
86063 of 2025. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners are in
custody since 18.08.2025 and have no criminal antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2683 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has opposed the prayer.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge
NDPS-cum-Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in connection
with Gidha P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.