Patna High Court
Ranjit Kumar MehtaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail and ordered his release on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar Mehta, sought bail in an NDNDPS case where 24.071 kg of ganja-like material was allegedly seized from his courtyard. He contended that the seizure was illegal as the police did not comply with Section 105 of the BNSS and the charge‑sheet was filed without a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report. He further argued that the charge‑sheet was filed beyond the statutory 180‑day period without any extension application by the public prosecutor, invoking the default bail provision under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed the bail, but the Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions and noted the procedural lapses. Consequently, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, directing compliance with the Sessions Judge‑cum‑Special Judge, NDPS, Supaul.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 of the NDPS Act due to delay in filing the charge‑sheet beyond 180 days without an extension.
- Whether the seizure of the alleged narcotic material complied with Section 105 of the BNSS and the requirement of an FSL report.
- Whether the absence of a charge‑sheet extension application by the public prosecutor justifies bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act — s. 105
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27, 29, 36(a) sub‑clause 4, 37(a), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- default bail
- charge‑sheet delay
- forensic science laboratory report
- seizure procedure
- Section 105 BNSS
- commercial quantity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83084 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- KUNAULI District- Supaul
======================================================
Ranjit Kumar Mehta S/O Lakshman Mehta R/O Village - Bathnaha, ward no.-
19, P.S- Kunauli, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
N.D.P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 arising out of Kunauli P.S. Case No.
37 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
8/20(b)(ii)(C)/25/27/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that altogether
24.071 kg of ganja like material was recovered from the courtyard
of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no
offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83084 of 2025(3) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
from the possession of the petitioner. The witnesses of the seizure
list are police personnel which has no evidentiary value in the eye
of law. Police has not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS
while making the seizure. He also submits that from perusal of the
case diary, it will transpire that the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet
without the FSL report. He also submits that as the I.O. has filed
charge-sheet without the FSL report and from the perusal of the
FIR, it is clear that the raiding party was not having any kit to
examine the said Ganja. He further submits that a statement has
been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal
antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
12.04.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a
case passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.
Misc. No. 65898 of 2023, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has
opined that from reading of Section 36(a) sub-clause 4 of the
NDPS Act, it appears that in the case of offence punishable under
Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27(a) or for offences
involving commercial quantity, the charge-sheet can be submitted
within 180 days and if the charge-sheet is not submitted within
180 days, the accused person is entitled for default bail. The
proviso to Section 37(a) speaks that public prosecutor may take an
extension of time for filing the charge-sheet and 180 days time
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83084 of 2025(3) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
can be extended for a period up to one year. After the public
prosecutor files that progress report of the investigation and gives
specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the said
period of 180 days. In the present case, the Special Public
Prosecutor has not filed any application for extension of period of
the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet as per the contention of the
petitioners have been filed without FSL report.
6. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Supaul in connection with
N.D.P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 arising out of Kunauli P.S. Case No.
37 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…