Patna High Court
Ajay SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted in the present circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 8 and 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that a seizure of 12.11 kg of ganja was made from Ramesh Kumar Prasad, who purportedly identified the petitioner as the owner of the contraband. The petitioner contended that nothing was seized from his possession and that the allegation was based solely on the informant’s statement. The State argued that the FIR expressly named the petitioner as an accused under the same provisions. After considering the submissions, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks for trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act when the FIR alleges ownership of seized narcotics but no material has been recovered from his possession.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(B)(ii)(B), 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- drug seizure
- ownership claim
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6322 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2025 Thana- BIHIA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Ajay Singh S/o Late Mukhram Singh R/o Village- Makhdumpur, Police
Station- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bihiya P.S. Case No. 358 of 2025 for the offence registered
under sections 8, 20(B)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that upon receiving information from DIAL 112, the patrolling
team apprehended Ramesh Kumar Prasad and recovered/ seized
12 kg 110 gram ganja. He informed that the petitioner is the
owner of the said seized item and it was to be served to Ritik
Singh. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
nothing has been recovered from his possession rather it has
been seized from Ramesh Kumar Prasad.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6322 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/2
5. Learned APP on the other hand has drawn attention
of this Court to paragraph 3 to show that the petitioner is an
accused in the same section of the NDPS Act. Further, the
allegation in the FIR is that the person from whom the seizure
has been made has named him.
6. Taking into account the aforesaid submissions, this
Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders within four
weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take up the matter
and dispose it of preferably on the same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…