Patna High Court
Raj Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to default bail because the charge‑sheet was not filed within the prescribed 180‑day period and no extension was sought.
Summary
Petitioner Raj Kumar Sharma applied for regular bail in a case under the NDPS Act where 38.5 kg of ganja was allegedly seized from his house. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserted that the seizure list was not prepared in compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS, and that the charge sheet was filed without the mandatory forensic laboratory (FSL) report. He further argued that the charge sheet was not filed within the statutory 180‑day period and no extension was sought by the public prosecutor. Relying on prior judgments interpreting Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 and Section 37(a) of the NDPS Act, the court examined whether default bail was applicable. Finding procedural lapses and the absence of a valid extension, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether default bail is available when a charge‑sheet under the NDPS Act is not filed within 180 days and no extension is obtained.
- Whether non‑compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS in preparing the seizure list warrants bail.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the alleged seizure of a commercial quantity of narcotics.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- default bail
- charge sheet delay
- procedural lapse
- seizure of narcotics
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32667 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-427 Year-2025 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Domilal Sharma @ Domi Lal Sharma Resident of
Village- Jagir, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20 (b) (ii)
(c) and 29 fo the NDPS Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from a
the house of the petitioner, altogether 38.5 kg of ganja was
recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing has been
recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and police have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32667 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
not complied Section 105 of the BNSS while preparing the
seizure list. In this case, the I.O. has filed charge sheet without
the FSL report which is apparent from Annexure-2 wherein I.O.
has recorded that the charge sheet is filed awaiting FSL report
from Bhagalpur and CSSL, Hyderabad. Moreover, the petitioner
is languishing in judicial custody since 16.12.2025 having no
criminal antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied
on an order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84487 of 2024
and in that order, this court has relied on an order of the learned
co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65898
of 2023 wherein the learned co-ordinate Bench has opined that
from reading of Section 36(a) sub-clause 4 of the NDPS Act, it
appears that in the case of offence punishable under Section 19
or Section 24 or Section 27(a) or for offences involving
commercial quantity, the charge-sheet can be submitted within
180 days and if the charge-sheet is not submitted within 180
days, the accused person is entitled for default bail. The proviso
to Section 37(a) speaks that public prosecutor may take an
extension of time for filing the charge-sheet and 180 days time
can be extended for a period up to one year. After the public
prosecutor files that progress report of the investigation and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32667 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
gives specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the
said period of 180 days. In the present case, the Special Public
Prosecutor has not filed any application for extension of period
of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet as per the contention of
the petitioner has been filed without FSL report.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Birpur P.S. Case No. 427 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-
cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Supaul.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
Sneha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.