Patna High Court
Sikandar Kumar @ Sikandar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner as the land where opium was cultivated was not prima facie connected to him.
Summary
The petitioner, Sikandar Kumar, was named in an FIR under Sections 8(B), 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged opium cultivation on protected forest land. The prosecution’s case was based on a joint raid that uncovered opium plants over 1.10 acres, but no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner argued innocence, noting that the FIR did not specify any plot or land belonging to him and that a co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, invoking judicial parity. The State opposed bail. The Court examined the lack of a prima facie link between the petitioner and the cultivated land and, applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, ordered his release on bail with a bond and sureties, subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 438 CrPC given the absence of a prima facie connection to the alleged opium cultivation.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused creates a right to bail for the petitioner on the ground of judicial parity.
- Whether the land where opium was found can be linked to the petitioner for the purpose of bail consideration.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 18, 29, 8(B)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- opium cultivation
- forest land
- anticipatory bail
- judicial parity
- CrPC Section 438
- BNSS Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36681 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2026 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Sikandar Kumar @ Sikandar Yadav, S/o Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village-
Phunguniya, PS- Barachatty, District- Gaya,
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Barachatty P.S.
Case No.56 of 2026 registered under Sections 8(B), 18 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(in short ‘NDPS Act’).
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
08.02.2026 at about 11:00 AM, a joint team comprising
officials of the SSB, Home Products Department,
representatives of the Intelligence Bureau and NCB reached
the place of occurrence for inspection and verification.
During inspection, it was found that illegal opium cultivation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36681 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
2/4
was being carried out in the forest area situated near the
river bank. Upon measurement and verification, opium
cultivation was detected over approximately 1.10 acres of
protected forest land falling under Forest Thana No. 284,
notified vide Notification No. C/PF10148/52-23R dated
02.01.1953. The opium plants were identified and confirmed
by all members of the raiding team, after which the plants
were uprooted. Thereafter, the opium crop was destroyed on
the spot by the labourers under the supervision of
authorities.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the present case. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that
local villagers disclosed the name of the accused persons
including the present petitioner. Nothing incriminating has
been recovered from his conscious possession. Learned
counsel further submits that there is general and omnibus
allegation against all the accused persons that they are
cultivating the opium in their land or the forest land. from
perusal of the First Information Report, it transpired that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36681 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
3/4
neither any plot no. nor Khata No. of the land in question
has been mentioned which disclosed that the said land
belongs to this petitioner. It is further submitted that
similarly situated co-accused namely, Baijnath Singh Bhokta
@ Baijnath Singh has already granted anticipatory bail by
one of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court through
Cr. Misc. No. 32376 of 2026 dated 07.05.2026 and,
therefore, this petitioner also deserves bail on the ground of
judicial parity. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.
6. In view of aforesaid facts and submissions, as
land in issue prima facie not appears connected with
petitioner, where alleged cultivation of opium was found,
accordingly, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks
from today, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Gaya
Ji in connection with Barachatty P.S. Case No.56 of 2026,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36681 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
4/4
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’)/under
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.