Patna High Court
Dara Manjhi @ Mahendra MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is warranted, subject to bond, surety and cooperation conditions, and may be cancelled if the petitioner does not cooperate.
Summary
The petitioner, Dara Manjhi, was implicated in a case under Sections 8, 15, 18(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act for alleged cultivation of opium on 8.14 acres of forest land. He argued that he has a clean record, the informant’s identity was not disclosed in the FIR, and that forest officials, who supervise the area, were not named, suggesting possible collusion. The State contended that the investigation was ongoing and that granting anticipatory bail might enable the petitioner to abscond. The court, after considering the submissions, ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail if arrested within six weeks, subject to a bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and the condition that his father act as one bailor. The order also empowered the trial court to cancel the bail if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding or obstructing the investigation.
- Whether the FIR and the investigation provide sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 15, 18(c), 25, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- opium cultivation
- forest land
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58473 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya
======================================================
Dara Manjhi @ Mahendra Mandal S/o Kailu Manjhi Resident of Village -
Chando, P.S.- Dhangai, District- Gaya,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 15,
18(c) & 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that opium was found cultivated on 8.14 acres of forest
land and was destroyed, further on enquiry, local persons
disclosed the name of the accused persons including the
petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the case was taken up on 15.11.2025,
when the learned APP was directed to file a counter affidavit. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58473 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
is further submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed.
Learned counsel next submits that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that opium was found
planted on forest land. It is next submitted that it is the forest
officials who indulged in farming of opium and when the fact
comes to the notice of superior authority, innocent villagers
living adjacent to forest area are implicated. It is further
submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that how
opium was cultivated on such large tract of forest land, when
forest authority keeps surveillance over the forest areas, which
amply demonstrates that opium was cultivated on forest land in
connivance with the forest officials who are deputed to keep
surveillance over the forest area on daily basis. It is further
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated based on
disclosure made by local villager but the name of the villager,
who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the
FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution,
when petitioner has not been implicated based on secret
information. It is also submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it
would manifest that not a single forest official have been
implicated in the instant case. It is submitted that bonafide of the
informant could have been established had the forest official
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58473 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
who is deputed to keep surveillance over the forest area was
also made an accused. It is reiterated and submitted that if the
forest land was used for cultivation of opium, the same could
not have been done without the connivance of forest official. It
is next submitted that a counter affidavit sworn by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Gaya has been filed but then the
counter affidavit also does not disclose the name of person who
disclosed the name of petitioner and other accused persons.
5. At this stage, the learned APP submits that
investigation in the case is continuing and if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond, on
which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No.21/2024, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58473 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. Further, one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his father, namely, Kailu Manjhi.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner
despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the
investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.