Patna High Court
Shashi MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is not liable as mere presence and an inadmissible confessional statement do not constitute sufficient evidence, and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Shashi Mishra was arrested after a police raid on Ram Udgar Yadav's house recovered 57.19 kg of ganja. He was charged under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, but the prosecution's case rested solely on his presence at the premises and a confessional statement recorded by police. The court held that mere presence without proof of conscious possession does not attract liability, and that a confessional statement under Section 67 NDPS is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as affirmed in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. With no material recovered from him and the confession excluded, the court found no basis to deny bail. Accordingly, the petitioner was released on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether mere presence at a premises where narcotics are seized can constitute criminal liability under the NDPS Act.
- Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the evidentiary deficiencies.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 25
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 67, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- possession
- confessional statement
- evidence
- criminal liability
- presence
- section 67
- section 25
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33656 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- GHOGHARDIHA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Shashi Mishra S/o Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra R/o village- Mohanpur, P.S.-
Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026, instituted for offences
under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The allegation is that a raid was conducted at the
house of one Ram Udgar Yadav, from where 57.19 kg of ganja
was recovered from different rooms and packets. Cash,
jewellery and mobile phones were also seized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He was
merely present at the house of Ram Udgar Yadav when the raid
took place. Nothing whatsoever was recovered from his person.
The petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2026.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33656 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail.
6. The records would show that the entire case against
the petitioner rests on two planks: his presence at the premises
of Ram Udgar Yadav at the time of the raid, and his alleged
confessional statement recorded before the police. On neither
count does the prosecution stand on firm ground. The recovery
of 57.19 kg of ganja was made from the house of Ram Udgar
Yadav. The petitioner admittedly has no proprietary or
possessory interest in those premises. He was a visitor found
present at the time the raid was conducted. Nothing was
recovered from his personal possession or from any space
exclusively attributable to him. It is well settled that mere
presence at a premises from which contraband is seized cannot
fasten criminal liability upon a person who is not shown to have
conscious possession of, or dominion over, the contraband. As
regards the confessional statement, the law on this point has
been settled by the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, where a three-Judge
Bench held that a confessional statement recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence, being hit by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as the officer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33656 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
recording such a statement is a police officer within the meaning
of that provision. The confessional statement attributed to the
petitioner, having been recorded before the police, has no
evidentiary value in the eye of law. With the confessional
statement thus excluded, and with no recovery from his person,
this Court is not impressed by the material placed by the State
against this petitioner. The case for bail is made out.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Madhubani or the concerned court, in
connection with Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.