Patna High Court
Naresh PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted because the trial had not concluded within a year and procedural deficiencies, including the failure to comply with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S., warranted release on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Naresh Paswan, sought regular bail in a case under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 24.5 grams of cannabis. He contended that the seized contraband was not in his possession, that the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. during seizure, and that he had been in judicial custody since 9 January 2024 without trial conclusion. The petitioner also argued that a prior bail denial could be revisited because more than a year had elapsed without trial completion, and that his criminal antecedent was not properly disclosed as required by a previous bail order. The State opposed the bail application, maintaining the seriousness of the offence. Considering the procedural lapses, the delay beyond one year, and the lack of a forensic report, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- The applicability of regular bail under the NDPS Act for a small quantity offence
- Whether non‑compliance with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. during seizure vitiates the charge
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after a one‑year delay in trial
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent must be disclosed before bail can be granted
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 105
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 105
- criminal antecedent
- trial delay
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40290 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2024 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Naresh Paswan Son of Ramchandar Paswan @ Ramchandra Paswan Resident
of Village- Bari Kothiya, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
Mr. Adarsh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 24-06-2026 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(c) and
21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that
altogether 24.5 grams of smack was recovered from the
possession of this petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that nothing has been recovered from his possession.
It has further been submitted that the seizure list witnesses are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40290 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
police personnel. Police has not complied Section 105 of the
B.N.S.S. while making the seizure. Petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 09.01.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that earlier the bail petition of this petitioner was
rejected by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 18.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 24233 of 2024 with an
observation that the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer
for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year.
It has further been submitted that more than one year has
elapsed from that order and the trial is still not concluded.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that vide order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc
No. 54056 of 2025, the petitioner was granted bail by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with an observation
that before accepting bail bonds of the petitioner, the learned
trial Court shall verify his criminal antecedent and if it is found
that he is involved in any other case except the cases, as
mentioned in paragraph 3 of the bail petition, his bail bond shall
not be accepted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that as the antecedent of the petitioner was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40290 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
properly disclosed in bail petition, his bail bond was not
accepted that is why, he is in custody. It has further been
submitted that the alleged recovery of contraband is though
more than small quantity but is much less than commercial
quantity. It has also been submitted that without F.S.L. report,
the charge-sheet was filed in this case.
8. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the application for bail.
9. 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 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special
Judge, Exclusive Special Court-I (NDPS Court), Muzaffarpur in
connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.