Patna High Court
Basudev SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail as the allegations do not specifically implicate them in the NDPS offences.
Summary
The petitioners, three residents of Lath Bela village, sought anticipatory bail after learning that they might be arrested in connection with a police case alleging opium cultivation on forest land in nearby Kumbhi village. The FIR, filed under Sections 8, 15, 18(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act, named them based on information from villagers, but the petitioners contended that no specific allegation linked them to the cultivation and that they lived two kilometres away. They argued that they had been implicated without a proper enquiry and possessed a clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the NDPS offences. After considering the submissions and the lack of direct evidence against the petitioners, the High Court held that a prima facie case for anticipatory bail existed and directed the District Court to release them on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to verification of any pending cases and compliance with Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act despite the FIR naming them.
- Whether the absence of specific allegations of personal involvement in opium cultivation justifies grant of pre‑arrest bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 15, 18(c), 25, 35, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- NDPS Act
- opium cultivation
- criminal procedure
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5782 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Basudev Singh Son of Kiwal Singh Resident of Village- Lath Bela, P.S.-
Dhangai, District- Gaya Ji.
2. Raj Kumar Singh Son of Dhanuk Singh Resident of Village- Lath Bela, P.S.-
Dhangai, District- Gaya Ji.
3. Khelawan Singh @ Lal Mohan Singh Son of Jagdish Singh. Resident of
Village- Lath Bela, P.S.- Dhangai, District- Gaya Ji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 06-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ram Bilash Roy
Raman, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 8 of 2025 registered under Sections
8, 15, 18(C), 25 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
informant along with other police personnel reached village
Kumbhi for destruction of opium plants allegedly cultivated on
forest land, and upon inquiry, certain villagers disclosed the
names of the accused persons, including the petitioners, as being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5782 of 2026(5) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
involved in such cultivation.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely
been implicated in the present case. The petitioners have no
concern with the alleged occurrence and they reside at a
distance of about 2 km from village Kumbhi, where the alleged
cultivation took place. The petitioners have been implicated
without any proper enquiry. There is no specific allegation that
the petitioners had cultivated opium plants on their own land so
as to attract the provisions of Sections 8, 15, 18(c) and 35 of the
NDPS Act. The petitioners have clean antecedent. On these
grounds, the petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegations made in
the FIR and the materials available on record, and considering
the absence of any specific allegation that the petitioners had
cultivated opium plants on their own land so as to attract the
Sections of 8, 15, 18(c) and 35 of the NDPS Act, along with the
fact that the petitioners reside away from the place of
occurrence and appear to have been implicated without proper
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5782 of 2026(5) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
enquiry, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have, prima
facie, made out a case to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
7. The learned District Court is directed to release the
petitioners on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 8 of 2025, subject to
the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioners, as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.