Patna High Court
Pramod Kumar @ Parmod Kumar @ LalaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as there is no cogent material linking the petitioner to the offence beyond the co‑accused’s disclosure.
Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Kumar, was implicated in a case (Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 253 of 2026) for alleged sale of a smack-like substance under Sections 8(c) and 21(a) of the NDPS Act. A police raid recovered 0.60 gm of the substance from a co‑accused, Anjit Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner was involved in the sale. The petitioner argued that, apart from this testimony, there was no material linking him to the crime, no incriminating items were found in his possession, and he had offered to cooperate with the court. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegation. The court, after considering the lack of corroborative evidence and the petitioner’s undertaking, granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted when the only evidence against the petitioner is the testimony of a co‑accused and no material has been recovered from his possession.
- Whether the requirements of Sections 103 and 105 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita have been complied with in the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21(a), 8(c)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- co‑accused testimony
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32129 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2026 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Pramod Kumar @ Parmod Kumar @ Lala son of Late Ram Swarath Sharma
Resident of Village- Dhangama P.S.-Jehanabad Dist -Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 04-06-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through
virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 253 of 2026,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and
21(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The police on a tip off regarding sale and
consumption of smack near the SC/ST hostel, conducted raid
and apprehended one ‘Anjit Kumar’. On search, 0.60 gm smack
like substance was recovered. The apprehended person
disclosed that the petitioner used to sale smack and from where
he purchased the same.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32129 of 2026(3) dt.04-06-2026
2/3
save and except the disclosure made by the apprehended person,
there is no material which suggest complicity of the petitioner in
the crime. Neither any incriminating material has been
recovered from the conscious and constructive possession of the
petitioner nor the petitioner has been found indulge in such
activities prior to the institution of this case. It is further
contended that though the petitioner is facing one criminal
antecedent but the same is of 2021 registered under Sections
341, 323, 421, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code which
has also been compromised in the Lok Adalat. It is next
contended that be that as it may even the smack like substance,
which has been recovered from the possession of co-accused
‘Anjit Kumar’ that is a small quantity, as has been duly
mentioned under serial no. 56 of the N.D.P.S. Act. However,
there is no compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS
and, as such, the entire prosecution case appears to be doubtful
to the extent of recovery. It is lastly contended that the petitioner
undertakes that he will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the
Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits
that there is very serious allegation against the petitioner of
selling the smack like substance to the persons like co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32129 of 2026(3) dt.04-06-2026
3/3
‘Anjit Kumar’.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and
taking note of the fact that save and except the disclosure made
by the co-accused, there is no other cogent material suggesting
his complicity in the crime, in question; besides nothing
incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious
and constructive possession of the petitioner and his undertaking
that he will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the Court, let
the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, in connection with
Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 253 of 2026 subject to the conditions
laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors
shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.