Patna High Court
Ganesh SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Ganesh Sah applied for anticipatory bail after police raided his residence and seized 15 grams of a smokable substance (smack) along with cash, arresting his wife Seema Devi who identified him as the supplier. The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 8(C) and 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner contended he was not present at the scene, the quantity was small, and the allegation rested solely on his wife's statement, asserting his innocence and clean record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seizure from his house and the wife's identification. After reviewing the material, the court found the circumstances sufficient to deny anticipatory bail and rejected the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act given the seizure of narcotics from his residence and identification by his co-accused.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 8(C)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- drug seizure
- co-accused testimony
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31466 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2025 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria
======================================================
Ganesh Sah Son of Late Mahadeo Sah Resident of Village- Baiju Patti
Tinkonma Ward No. 03, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the state.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 130 of 2025, for allegedly having
committed offence under Sections 8 (C) and 21(b) of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the effect that he received an information that the petitioner
along with his wife is involved in selling and smuggling of
smack. To verify the authenticity of the said information, a
raiding team was constituted and the informant along with the
team reached at the house of the petitioner herein. Upon seeing
the police party, one person managed to escape, however, he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31466 of 2026(3) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
was identified as the petitioner. One woman was taken into
custody and upon interrogation, she disclosed her name as
Seema Devi. In presence of the police witnesses search was
carried out. Smack like substance wrapped in a black foil which
was found from an orange foil bag under the bed-sheet was
recovered and the same was found to be total 15 grams. Apart
from the smack Rs. 29,950/- was also recovered. The arrested
accused Seema Devi disclosed that her husband i.e., the
petitioner herein get smack from outside and used to sell it from
their home.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence.
She submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of
occurrence and therefore there is no question of recovery from
him. The name of the petitioner transpired in the present case on
the basis of the statement given by the co-accused Seema Devi
before the police, since she was apprehended at the place of
occurrence. She further submits that the recovered smack is
small quantity and has been recovered from a joint family
property, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be involved
in sale of smack. She further submits that the petitioner has got
a clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31466 of 2026(3) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the state
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that 15 grams of smack has been recovered from the
house of the petitioner and wife of the petitioner has been taken
into custody at the place of occurrence itself. He further submits
that the petitioner managed to escape and has been named by his
wife.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the records, it appears that 15 grams of smack was
seized from the house of the petitioner and his wife was
arrested. She disclosed the name of the person, who is said to
have fled away, as the petitioner.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this
court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail
application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.