Patna High Court
Md. Minhaj AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the material on record, including the confessional statement and drug seizure, justified denial of such relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Minhaj Alam, sought anticipatory bail after a police raid recovered 166.101 kg of ganja from a motorcycle owned by co-accused Md. Imran, who, in his confessional statement, implicated the petitioner, his brother‑in‑law. The petitioner argued that the confessional statement is inadmissible and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The State countered with the confessional statement and a CDR report suggesting contact between the two. The Court examined the material, noting the large quantity of narcotics and the implication from the co‑accused, and concluded that anticipatory bail could not be granted. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, his regular bail application would be considered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a co‑accused’s confessional statement implicates the petitioner under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused is admissible for the purpose of bail considerations.
- Whether the CDR report establishing communication between the petitioner and co‑accused influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- NDPS Act
- drug seizure
- bail jurisprudence
- CDR report
- evidentiary admissibility
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50509 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- Madhusudanpur District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Md. Minhaj Alam S/o Md. Abdus Samad R/o Village- Harna Bujurg, P.S.-
Rajoun, District- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshul, Sr. Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Anshul, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Madhusudanpur P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The police in course of patrolling, on an
information conducted a raid and recovered a motorcycle
parked nearby a road. The persons who were assembled there
succeeded in fleeing away. In course of search, total 166.101 kg
ganja like material was found, which was kept over the
motorcycle. The motorcycle was later on found in the name of
co-accused Md. Imran. In the aforesaid premise, Md. Imran was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50509 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
caught by the police and his confessional statement was
recorded, where the name of the petitioner has surfaced.
4. Learned Senior Advocate referring to the FIR
contended that save and except the fact, the name of the
petitioner has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-
accused Md. Imran, who is said to be owner of the motorcycle
and that person is none else but the brother-in-law of the
petitioner, his name has been implicated in this case without
there being any cogent material. The confessional statement and
the disclosure even if taken to be true, is not admissible in the
eyes of law. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance has
been placed on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.
The petitioner bears fair antecedent and he undertakes that he
would fully cooperate in the proceeding of the Court.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. It is contended that
besides the fact the name of the petitioner transpired in the
confessional statement, the CDR report also suggest that they
were in touch.
6. At this juncture, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner submits that since both the co-accused, Md. Imran
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50509 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
and the petitioner are brother-in-law and, as such, the
conversation between them is quite natural.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact that total 166.101 ganja was recovered from the
motorcycle, which belongs to co-accused Md. Imran and who
subsequently disclosed the name of the petitioner, this Court is
not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner,
however, if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below
preferably within a period of four weeks’ from today, his prayer
for regular bail shall be considered without being prejudice by
the order of this Court.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…