Patna High Court
Mahamaya Rai @ Mahamaya YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner was not prima facie liable under the NDPS Act and granted anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahamaya Rai, was named in an FIR for alleged offences under the NDPS Act after 46 kg of ganja was recovered from his ancestral house. While the police raided the premises, his two sons fled but were later apprehended; however, no direct disclosure linked the petitioner to the contraband. The petitioner argued that he did not have knowledge or control over the seized narcotics and that the presumption of knowledge under Section 35 of the NDPS Act should not apply to him. The State could not refute these factual submissions. Relying on the lack of prima facie evidence and the petitioner’s lack of culpable mental state, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the NDPS Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for possession of ganja under the NDPS Act despite lack of knowledge or control.
- Whether the presumption of knowledge under Section 35 of the NDPS Act applies to the petitioner.
- Whether anticipatory bail is appropriate in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (NDPS Act) — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c), 25, 35, 37, 8
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- possession
- presumption of knowledge
- father-son liability
- contraband
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40757 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2025 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna
======================================================
Mahamaya Rai @ Mahamaya Yadav Son of Late Rambali Ray Resident
at Jakkanpur, Janata Road, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.P.N.Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-06-2026 Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Gardanibagh
P.S. Case No. 407 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 8, 20(b()(ii)(c), 22(c), 25 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per FIR, 46 kg. Ganja was recovered from the
house of this petitioner. It is alleged that while police raided
the house of the petitioner, his two sons namely, Pintu
Kumar and Chintu Kumar were fled away from the house
by taking advantage of night and narrow street.
4. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40757 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
on behalf of the petitioner submitted that admittedly only
two co-accused persons namely, Pintu Kumar and Chintu
Kumar, who are the sons of this petitioner, ran away and
after chase for a short, were arrested by police. It is
submitted by Mr. Shahi that even no disclosure was
obtained from the apprehended co-accused persons and
only on the basis of relation and suspicion as the petitioner
is the father of apprehended co-accused persons, he has
been implicated with present recovery of contraband i.e.
Ganja.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Shahi that earlier also the
son of the petitioner was apprehended in Jakkanpur P.S.
Case No. 548/2025, where name of this petitioner was
disclosed by one of the co-accused, who was said to be
purchaser of Ganja disclosed the name of this petitioner
where he was granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial
court itself.
6. Arguing further, Mr. Shahi submitted that
petitioner is not living in the said house which is completely
under control of his sons and as the house in issue is
ancestral house, he was implicated with the present crime in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40757 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
question being father.
7. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid fact, it
can be safely said that petitioner was not under culpable
mental state having possession over recovered Ganja in
view of section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act and, therefore,
factual scenario of this case prima facie not appears to
attract the rigors of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, could not
disputed the aforesaid factual submission as advanced by
Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as the name of this petitioner not
even disclosed by apprehended co-accused persons, rather
on the basis of suspicion and secret information received
from unknown source, the petitioner was implicated prima
facie with present recovery of contraband i.e. Ganja only
being father of apprehended co-accused persons,
accordingly, above-named petitioner, in the event of his
arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this
order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40757 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Sessiions Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act,
Patna/concerned court in connection with Gardanibagh P.S.
Case No. 407 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short
“B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.