Patna High Court
Chhotu Baba @ Kalim @ Aniket KrishnaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the alleged substances do not constitute intoxicants under the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhotu Baba, was implicated in a case (Sonepur Hariharnath PS Case No. 286 of 2023) for alleged offences under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act after police recovered Phenergan and Avil injections from three persons, while the petitioner fled. He contended that the substances are not intoxicants or narcotic drugs and cited judgments (Lijo Joy v. State of Kerala and Rajveer Singh @ Raju v. State of Punjab) to support his claim. The petitioner also asserted lack of prior criminal antecedents and that he had not previously applied for anticipatory or regular bail. The State opposed the bail application. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted bail, directing the petitioner to surrender within eight weeks and furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S 2023 and the possibility of cancellation if criminal antecedents are discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether Phenergan and Avil injections qualify as "intoxicant or narcotic drug" under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in the present circumstances
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of no prior criminal antecedents affects the bail decision
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- intoxicant
- Phenergan
- Avil
- Section 22
- Section 27
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78087 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-286 Year-2023 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Chhotu Baba @ Kalim @ Aniket Krishna S/o Neell Krishna Singh R/O
village- Sonepur, PS- Sonepur Hariharnath, Distt- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Harshvardhan, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Sonepur Hariharnath P.S. Case No. 286 of
2023 dated 22.04.2023, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per allegation, the police got information that
certain persons are indulged in selling the intoxicant and when
they reached the place of occurrence, one person fled away and
three persons were apprehended on the spot and Phenergan and
Avil injections were recovered from all three apprehended
accused persons and the petitioner had fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78087 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/3
case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, no offence at all
much less under the NDPS Act is made out as per the alleged
facts and circumstances. To substantiate his submission, he
further submits that Phenergan and Avil injections are not
intoxicant or narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance. He also
refers to the judgment of Lijo Joy Vs. State of Kerala in Crl. A.
No. 1520 of 2012 and Rajveer Singh @ Raju Vs. State of
Punjab in CRM-M No. 51661 of 2021, wherein it has been held
that the alleged Phenergan and Avil injections are not intoxicant
or narcotic and psychotropic substance.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named,
to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78087 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
3/3
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned concerned Court below, in connection
with Sonepur Hariharnath P.S. Case No. 286 of 2023, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the
B.N.S.S 2023, and on the following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned
court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after
hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
shoaib/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.