Patna High Court
Lalan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the case did not qualify for such relief under the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioners, Lalan Kumar and Ramesh Rai, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 990 g of ganja, 3.28 kg of charas and 840 g of smack. They contended that they were falsely implicated based solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement, that no arrest was made on the spot, and that the prosecution had not complied with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State argued that the seized narcotics exceeded commercial quantity, invoking the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court examined the gravity of the offences, the lack of direct evidence against the petitioners, and the statutory bar, and concluded that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application but allowed the petitioners to surrender within six weeks to seek regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a NDPS case where the alleged contraband exceeds commercial quantity
- Whether non‑compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, bars anticipatory bail
- Whether reliance on a co‑accused’s confessional statement suffices to justify anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(II)(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29, 37, 8, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 103 BNS
- confessional statement
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31157 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2024 Thana- LAKHAURA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Lalan Kumar son of Bhola Rai Resident of village -chhoka Pakahi, PS-
Lakhaura, District -East champaran
2. Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Kumar Son of Bhola Rai Resident of village
-chhoka Pakahi, PS- Lakhaura, District -East champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Eashita Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suman Kumari Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Lakhaura P.S. Case No. 204 of 2024, instituted for the
offences under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(B), 8/20(b)(II)(c), 8(c),
21(c), 23(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that there is recovery
of 990 gram of Ganja, 3.280 Kg Charas and 840 grams smack in
this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.
Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The name of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31157 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
petitioners transpired in this case on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused. The alleged recovery has been made
from co-accused Bhola Rai. The petitioners have not been
apprehended on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made
against the petitioners. There is no compliance of Section 103 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has been
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners have no
criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further
submitted that the recovered contraband is above the
commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. The petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature and gravity of offence, in my view, this is not
a fit case for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners is, hereby, rejected.
8. However, if the petitioners surrenders before the
learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and
prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31157 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…