Patna High Court
Hadir Khan @ Adir KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from the petitioner’s shop established possession, and the alleged procedural lapses were insufficient to justify bail.
Summary
Petitioner Hadir Khan sought anticipatory bail after a police raid on his scrap shop recovered 89.742 kg of ganja, leading to charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner contended that the search and seizure violated Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, arguing lack of proper sealing, absence of independent witnesses, and that the shop was open to the public, thus negating conscious possession. The State opposed these submissions, emphasizing the large quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner’s premises. The Court examined the procedural allegations but held that the recovery indicated possession and the procedural lapses were not sufficient to merit anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite alleged procedural violations in the search and seizure.
- Whether the recovery of narcotics from the petitioner’s shop establishes conscious possession under the NDPS Act.
- Whether non‑compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 103, 105
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(C), 29, 42(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- search and seizure
- possession
- procedural compliance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28289 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2025 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran
======================================================
Hadir Khan @ Adir Khan Son of Late Nathu Khan Resident of village -
Sabaithawa, P.S.- Kangli, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No.
196 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)
(C), 23(C), 29 of NDPS Act.
3. As per prosecution case, co-accused Ashotush
Kumar was apprehended on recovery of some psychotropic
substance, who disclosed that the petitioner and other co-
accused persons have brought ganja in their scrap shop. A raid
was conducted and the co-accused persons were apprehended
and recovery of 89.742 kg of ganja like substance was made
from the shop registered in the name of the petitioner, who was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28289 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
not apprehended from the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. There is complete non-compliance of Sections 103 and
105 of BNSS for search and seizure and also Section 42(2) of
the NDPS Act. The shop of the petitioner is not enclosed from
all sides and thus it is accessible to public and for this reason,
the recovery cannot be said to be from the conscious possession
of the petitioner. No independent witness has been examined
though police has sufficient time to approach the independent
witnesses. In course of investigation the police has not recorded
the statement of the learned Executive Magistrate, who
witnessed the search and seizure. Learned counsel further
submits that the seized contraband was not sealed at the spot
and sealing and sampling was done after gap of five days. The
FSL report is awaited for the seized contraband. The petitioner
is having clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the
fact that the recovery of huge quantity of contraband has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28289 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
shown from the shop of the petitioner, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and hence, his prayer
for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…