Patna High Court
Abhishek Kumar GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to strict conditions, given the trial delay and the bail already granted to co‑accused.
Summary
Abhishek Kumar Gupta was arrested on 26‑12‑2023 after 506 g of cannabis (smack) was recovered from his lap, and was charged under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. An earlier application for anticipatory bail was rejected. The trial court framed charges on 01‑05‑2025, but no witnesses have been examined and the trial appears to be delayed. Several co‑accused have already been released on bail. The petitioner, represented by senior counsel N. K. Agarwal and Advocate Jay Ram Prasad, sought regular bail, arguing clean antecedents and prolonged pre‑trial detention. The State opposed the bail. Considering the delay, the non‑examination of witnesses, and the bail granted to co‑accused, the High Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and three conditions, including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act where a commercial quantity of narcotic has been seized.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and delay in trial justify bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
- Whether the bail granted to co‑accused influences the decision on bail for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(c), 25, 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑trial detention
- commercial quantity
- co‑accused bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55430 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-876 Year-2023 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar Gupta S/O Jitendra Kumar R/O Village- Fulka, P.S-
Jamalpur, Distt.- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. N. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
26.12.2023 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 103 of
2024, (arising out of Ram Krishna Nagar P.S. Case No.
876/2023) F.I.R. dated 25.12.2023, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Earlier, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of
the petitioner was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
54937 of 2024.
4. According to prosecution case, total 506 grams of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55430 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
smack was recovered from the lap of the petitioner who was
sitting in the car.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in
custody since 26.12.2023 and the trial is not in progress.
Learned counsel further submits that although the alleged
recovery is made from the possession of the petitioner and the
recovered contraband is more than commercial quantity and
nine persons have been arrested along with the petitioner in the
present FIR.
6. Vide order dated 19.02.2026, a report was called for
with regard to stage of trial. Report dated 23.02.2026 of learned
trial court reveals that charge has been framed against the
petitioner and other accused persons on 01.05.2025 u/s 21(c), 25
and 29 of the NDPS Act. Out of eight charge-sheet witnesses, no
one has turned up for examination till now. Despite of summons
issued by the learned trial court, thereafter the bailable warrant
has also issued against the witnesses, then NBW was issued
against the informant and I.O. on 24.01.2026.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that in view of the report of the learned trial court that the trial is
not going to conclude in near future and the petitioner is in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55430 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
custody since more than two years and the co-accused persons,
namely, Himanshu Kumar, has been granted bail by a corrdinate
Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 18.05.2024 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 41687 of 2024, co-accused person, namely,
Yuvraj @ Abhiraj has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench
of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 26354/2024 and Amit Raj @ Atul has been granted
bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order
dated 12.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 81577 of 2024.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and also the report of learned trial court and period
of custody of the petitioner and similarly situated co-accused
persons have been granted bail by a different coordinate Bench
of this Hon’ble Court, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS No-II,
Patna, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 103 of
2024, (arising out of Ram Krishna Nagar P.S. Case No.
876/2023), with the following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55430 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
(i) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(ii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(iii) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…