Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 57.53 grams of cannabis resin. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot and that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement of another accused, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s antecedent record of four cases, including a prior NDPS offence, and contended that granting bail could enable him to abscond or tamper with evidence. The Court examined the submissions and, considering the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s criminal history, declined to extend anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act given his prior criminal record and the nature of the alleged offence?
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- drug offence
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal antecedent
- confessional statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82367 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2025 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Chaudhary S/o Baiju Chaudhary R/o
Pachmohalla, P.S. and District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kunwar Digvijay Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b)
and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases. It is further submitted
that no doubt, the allegation is of recovery of 57.53 grams of
smack but then petitioner was not arrested from the spot and his
name transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended
accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value in the eye of law.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has
antecedent of four cases out of which one case is under the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82367 of 2025(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/2
NDPS Act, as such, the instant case is the second offence. It is
further submitted that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is
granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to
tamper with the evidence.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with
Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 471 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned Principal District Judge, Jehanabad/Successor Court.
6. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…