Patna High Court
Md. YasinversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted to petitioner no.1 (Md. Yasin) and denied to petitioner no.2 (Md. Sharif).
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Yasin and his son Md. Sharif, sought bail in a case registered as Semapur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 under Sections 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The police alleged that during a raid the two fled on motorcycles, one of them (Sharif) was accused of carrying 25.604 kg of ganja while Yasin was seen removing a bag from a bike, though he claimed ignorance of its contents. Both petitioners argued they were falsely implicated and had no prior criminal record, having been in judicial custody since 10‑10‑2025. The State opposed regular bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged drug possession. The High Court granted bail to Yasin upon a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, but denied bail to Sharif, directing that he may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending. The order reflects the court’s assessment of the differing degrees of alleged involvement and the statutory criteria for bail under the NDPS Act.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act considering the nature of the alleged offences
- Whether the differing roles alleged against the two petitioners justify a differential bail decision
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 20
- Section 22
- possession of narcotics
- criminal procedure
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4681 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2025 Thana- SEMAPUR District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Md. Yasin, Son of Late Abdul Taiyab, R/o Tengaria, P.S. - Semapur, Distt. -
Katihar.
2. Md. Sharif, Son of Md. Yasin, R/o Tengaria, P.S. - Semapur, Distt. - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection
with Semapur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S.
Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that while the
police was conducting raid, they observed two bikes approaching
rapidly from the direction of Tengaria village. As soon as the
occupants of the bikes scouted the police, they turn their bikes
around and fled towards Tengaria. The police chased the two
bikers. After short distance, both drove their bikes into the
courtyard of a house and taking advantage of the darkness
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4681 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
managed to escape. At that moment, they saw that a person
removing a bag from one of the parked bikes. Upon seeing the
police, the person became nervous.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this
case. Petitioner no. 1 is the person who is alleged to have
removing the bag from the bike and petitioner no.2 is his son who
is alleged to have parked the bike. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that as far as the petitioner no. 1 is
concerned, only allegation against him is that he was removing the
bag from the bike. It has further been submitted that even the
petitioner no.1 was not knowing as to what was there in the bike. It
has also been submitted that main thrust of allegation is against
petitioner no.2 who according to the case of the prosecution was
carrying the bag on his bike. Petitioners are having no criminal
antecedent and they are languishing in judicial custody since
10.10.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case , this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1, namely, Md. Yasin on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4681 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
bail. The above named petitioner no.1 is directed to be released
on bail in connection with Semapur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Court of Sessions Judge, Katihar.
7. So far as petitioner no.2 namely, Md. Sharif is
concerned, since there is direct allegation against him of
carrying 25.604 kg of ganja from two bikes, this court is not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such,
his prayer for bail stands rejected.
8. However, petitioner no. 2, namely, Md. Sharif may
renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not
concluded.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…