Patna High Court
Shatrughan Yadav @ Shatrudhan Yadav @ Satrohan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that given the small quantity of narcotic, the lack of an independent witness to the seizure, and the petitioner’s clean record, bail may be granted under the NDPS Act with appropriate conditions.
Summary
Shatrughan Yadav was arrested for alleged possession of 35 grams of a smack-like substance under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act. He contended that the seizure was false, that no independent witness was present during the search, and highlighted his clean criminal record and that the charge sheet had been filed. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court examined the small quantity involved, the lack of an independent witness to the seizure, and the petitioner’s lack of prior convictions, and concluded that these factors favored bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding court attendance and surety composition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted for possession of a small quantity of narcotic under the NDPS Act
- Whether the absence of an independent witness to the seizure justifies bail
- Whether the petitioner’s clean record and filing of charge sheet warrant bail
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- possession
- small quantity
- seizure
- independent witness
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75170 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Shatrughan Yadav @ Shatrudhan Yadav @ Satrohan Yadav S/o- Narayan
Yadav R/v- Muradpur Ps- Birpur Dist- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 21 (b) of N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, 35 gram of smack like
substance was recovered from the back pocket of the petitioner.
4. The submissions on behalf of the petitioner is that the
petitioner was running a hotel on lease and a false recovery of 35
grams of smack like substance has been shown from the back pocket
of the petitioner and the source of such information that the petitioner
would be carrying some intermediate amount of smack in pocket, has
also not been disclosed. Further, the petitioner was taken into custody
during the day time and yet no independent witness is there on the
seizure list. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2025 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75170 of 2025(5) dt.13-02-2026
2/2
has no criminal antecedent and the charge sheet has also been
submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the bail petition.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and also considering the fact that the recovery of the
substance is a little over small quantity but much less than
commercial quantity and coupled with the fact that there is no
independent witness to the search and seizure, the above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the
case is pending/successor Court in connection with Sahebur Kamal
P.S. Case No. of 212 of 2025, subject to the conditions that :
(i) One of the bailors will be his close relative/family
members.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in court
on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two
consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be
liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…