Patna High Court
Govinda Sahani @ Govind Sahani @ Gobinda SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail as the charge‑sheet was filed without an FSL report and beyond the statutory period without any extension, and his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 outweighs the statutory embargo.
Summary
The petitioner, Govinda Sahani, was arrested in connection with possession of a country‑made pistol and alleged concealment of charas (1.020 kg) recovered from bushes, leading to charges under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, the Arms Act and the NDPS Act. He applied for regular bail, contending that no contraband was found in his possession, the charge‑sheet was filed without a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report, and the charge‑sheet was submitted beyond the 180‑day period without any extension by the public prosecutor. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s fourteen prior criminal cases. The court examined the provisions of Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 and Section 37(a) of the NDPS Act, noting that failure to file a charge‑sheet within the stipulated time without a valid extension entitles the accused to default bail, and relied on the Supreme Court’s Rabi Prakash judgment emphasizing the primacy of Article 21 rights. Considering the circumstances, the court granted regular bail on the condition of cooperation with the trial and regular attendance, requiring a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge‑sheet filed without an FSL report violates procedural requirements.
- Whether the delay beyond 180 days in filing the charge‑sheet, without an extension, entitles the accused to default bail under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 overrides statutory provisions restricting bail in NDPS cases.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 111, 317(4), 317(5)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 22, 23, 36(a) sub‑clause 4, 37(a)
Subjects
- regular bail
- NDPS Act
- charge‑sheet delay
- forensic report
- Article 21
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66163 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-413 Year-2024 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Govinda Sahani @ Govind Sahani @ Gobinda Sahani Son of Jagdish Sahani
Resident of village- Bhatha, (Bhatahan), P.S.- Muffasil, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(4)
& 317(5) of the BNS and under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 & 35 of
the Arms Act and under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the NDPS
Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from
the possession of this petitioner a country made pistol was
recovered and on being asked he disclosed that he has concealed
charas in the bushes and from the bushes charas like substance
was found and upon weighing of two packets, it was found
1.020 kg.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66163 of 2025(6) dt.12-02-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
this case nothing has been recovered from the possession of this
petitioner; recovery, if any, has been made from the bushes. It
has further been submitted that in this case police has submitted
the charge-sheet without the FSL and from perusal of the FIR
itself it is clear that police has stated that charas like substance
was recovered from the bushes. A report was called from the
learned trial court and learned trial court has reported vide its
report dated 20.01.2026 that the charge-sheet has been
submitted without FSL report. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that his prayer is two fold; first is that nothing has
been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and second
is that charge-sheet has been filed without FSL. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 12.12.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an
order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84487 of 2024 and in
that order, this court has relied on an order of the learned co-
ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65898 of
2023 wherein the learned co-ordinate Bench has opined that
from reading of Section 36(a) sub-clause 4 of the NDPS Act, it
appears that in the case of offence punishable under Section 19
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66163 of 2025(6) dt.12-02-2026
3/4
or Section 24 or Section 27(a) or for offences involving
commercial quantity, the charge-sheet can be submitted within
180 days and if the charge-sheet is not submitted within 180
days, the accused person is entitled for default bail. The proviso
to Section 37(a) speaks that public prosecutor may take an
extension of time for filing the charge-sheet and 180 days time
can be extended for a period up to one year. After the public
prosecutor files that progress report of the investigation and
gives specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the
said period of 180 days. In the present case, the Special Public
Prosecutor has not filed any application for extension of period
of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet as per the contention of
the petitioner has been filed without FSL report.
6. In the case of Rabi Prakash vs. the State of
Odisha, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the prolonged
incarceration generally militate against the most precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and in such situation, the conditional
liberty must override the statutory embargo created under
Section 37 sub-clause 1(b) of the NDPS Act. The charge-sheet
filed without FSL report does not ipso facto creates any
embargo against the fundamental right of a citizen enshrined in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66163 of 2025(6) dt.12-02-2026
4/4
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
7. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of
fourteen cases.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the condition that
the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall remain
physically present on each and every date in the trial court and
shall mark his attendance weekly in Muffasil P.S. The above
named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection
with NDPS Case No. 115 of 2024 arising out of Kesariya P.S.
Case No.413 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, East
Champaran, Motihari.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…