Patna High Court

Gumani BhoktaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The Court held that the lack of a seizure list, the immaturity of the plant, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent justify granting anticipatory bail.

Summary

Gumani Bhokta was named in an FIR for alleged cultivation of opium plants under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act. He contended that the seized plant was immature, no seizure list was prepared, and the allegation was vague, asserting that he was a land‑less person with no connection to the land. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court noted the absence of a seizure list, the immaturity of the plant, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and consequently ordered that he be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order directs the bail to be granted if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in the absence of a seizure list and when the seized plant is immature.
Whether the allegations under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act are sufficient to deny bail.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 18, 20, 22

Subjects

anticipatory bail
NDPS Act
opium cultivation
seizure list
clean antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76292 of 2024
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2016 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Gumani Bhokta Son of Late Faudari Bhokta Resident of Village- Naktaiya,
                 P.S.- Barachatti, District - Gaya

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                          ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   08-01-2026               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                             2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case

                   No. 25 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 18, 20, 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

                             3. The allegation against the petitioner is to cultivate the

                   plant of opium alongwith 20 named accused persons.

                             4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   submitted that admittedly the plant which was destroyed by the

                   police team was not matured and without flower of opium. It is

                   submitted that no seizure list was prepared. It is submitted that

                   merely on the basis of suspicion the present false implication was

                   made against the petitioner, who is a land-less person. It is
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76292 of 2024(5) dt.08-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     pointed out that the land in issue was not connected to the

                     petitioner and moreover, allegation raised in the FIR for cultivation

                     of opium plant is very much general and omnibus.

                              5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

                     anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                              6. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by

                     taking note of the fact as admittedly seizure list was not prepared

                     by police qua allegation supporting the cultivation of opium,

                     coupled with the fact that petitioner appears man of clean

                     antecedent, accordingly, above-named petitioner, in the event of

                     his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order,

                     is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of

                     Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like

                     amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-

                     Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Gaya/concerned court in connection

                     with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 25 of 2016, subject to the

                     conditions     as    laid   down        under    Section   438(2)   of   the

                     Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

                     (in short “B.N.S.S.”).


                                                                     (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…