Patna High Court
Tinku Singh @ Pushkal Kumar Singh @ PushkalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, holding that the co‑accused’s statement does not alone justify denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Tinku Singh, was arrested in connection with the recovery of 116.640 kg of ganja from a van and charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22, 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He contended that the contraband was found in the possession of the driver, Rishabh Kumar, and that the only evidence against him was the co‑accused’s confessional statement, which he argued has no evidentiary value for implicating another accused. The petitioner also highlighted that the van’s owner was Md. Gholam Raza, he has no prior criminal record, and he has been in judicial custody since 5 December 2025. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court examined whether the co‑accused’s statement could justify denial of bail. After considering the circumstances, the court granted regular bail on the condition of a Rs 10,000 bond and two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the co‑accused’s confessional statement can be used as substantive evidence to deny bail to the petitioner under the NDPS Act
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 22, 27(A), 29
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- co‑accused statement
- evidentiary value
- drug trafficking
- regular bail
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8201 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- Bajitpur District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Tinku Singh @ Pushkal Kumar Singh @ Pushkal, S/O Sunder Singh, R/O
Vil.- Achahari, P.O – Adsar, PS-Jamui,Dist- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Shandilya, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 10-04-2026 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 20 (b) (ii)
(C), 22, 27 (A) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that
altogether 116.640 kg. of ganja like contraband was recovered
from a van.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
connection with the present case. It is further submitted that no
contraband has been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner. It is contended that the recovery was made from the
possession of one Rishabh Kumar and according to Rishabh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8201 of 2026(4) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
Kumar, he is driver of this petitioner. It has further been
submitted that during investigation, in para ‘132’ of the case
diary, it has come that one Md. Gholam Raza is the owner of the
said van. It has further been submitted that only material against
the petitioner is confessional statement of the co-accused
Rishabh Kumar. It has further been submitted that similarly
situated co-accused Saurav Kumar has been granted bail by this
Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 11584 of 2026. Petitioner is having no
criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody
since 05.12.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
the statement of a co-accused recorded under the NDPS Act has
no evidentiary value for the purpose of implicating another
accused.
6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on
bail in connection with PTN (Special Case) No. 2351 of 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8201 of 2026(4) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
arising out of Bajitpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025 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 (NDPS Act), Darbhanga.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…