Patna High Court
Dilip Kumar Yadav @ Dilip KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the anticipatory bail application must be rejected as the prima facie evidence indicated possession of a commercial quantity of buprenorphine and a culpable mental state.
Summary
The petitioner, Dilip Kumar Yadav, was named in an FIR for alleged offences under Sections 21(b), 22(c), 25(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act after a police raid seized large quantities of buprenorphine and related injections from his residence. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the drugs were found in a house occupied by multiple adult family members, that the search did not comply with Section 103(4) of the BNSS, and that there were no independent witnesses to the seizure list, asserting his clean antecedents. The State contended that the quantity of buprenorphine recovered exceeded the commercial threshold, that the petitioner, being the son of a co‑accused residing in the same house, could not deny a culpable mental state, and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act precludes bail. The court examined the prima facie evidence, noting the commercial quantity of the drugs and the apparent mental culpability, and concluded that the bail application could not be entertained. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the seized narcotic quantity exceeds the commercial threshold under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 103(4) of the BNSS affects the bail eligibility.
- Whether the petitioner can be said to possess a culpable mental state despite the presence of other adult occupants in the house.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (Suppression) Act — s. 103(4)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 22(c), 25(A), 29, 37
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- drug possession
- culpable mental state
- search compliance
- seizure
- buprenorphine
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36495 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2026 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
Dilip Kumar Yadav @ Dilip Kumar S/o Kameshwar Yadav R/o Village -
Lalganj, Ward no. 11, P.S. - Supaul, Dist. - Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pratibha Srivastava, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2.The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case
No. 91 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 21(b), 22(c), 25(A), 29 of NDPS Act.
3. As per FIR upon raid on 04.02.2026, the police
seized 65 pieces of NRx Buprenorphine Injection I.P
LEEGESIC, 600 pieces of NRx Buprenorphine Hydeochloride
Injection I.P. Batch No. NB- 521, 480 pieces of Pheniramine
Maleate Injection I.P. (A VIL) Batch No. 321325033 and
130 pieces of Pheniramine Maleate Injection IP (AVIL) Batch
No. 321325030 from the house of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36495 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/3
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that upon raid the father of the
petitioner was apprehended by police with seized drugs
leading to implication of petitioner as he is the son and also
residing in same house. It is pointed out that as the house,
in issue, is occupied by different adult family members,
therefore, it cannot be said that recovery of alleged
contraband/ drug was made from conscious physical
possession of this petitioner. It is also submitted that the
search of house was not in compliance with Section 103(4)
of the BNSS and moreover, the seizure list not appears
supported by independent witnesses. Petitioner calimed clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that contraband in this case is “Buprenorphine”.
In this context it is further submitted that any recovery
above 20 grams is commercial quantity in case of
“Buprenorphine”, therefore, total of 665 piece of
Buprenorphine injection suggests that the recovery was
above commercial quantity. It is also submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36495 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/3
petitioner is the son of the apprehended co-accused person
living in the same house and therefore, he is not in position
to negate his culpable mental state qua recovered
contraband. It is also submitted that in view of rigors
available under Section 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not
entitled for bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact as prima-facie the recovery of contraband
appears more than commercial quantity, where the factual
aspect of this case suggesting prima-facie that petitioner was
under culpable mental state qua recovered drugs,
accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner
stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.