Patna High Court
Pankaj SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied the petitioner's prayer for regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Singh, sought regular bail in a case arising from the seizure of 1.362 kg of charas from a motorcycle registered in his name. The prosecution alleged that the narcotic substance was recovered from the bike's utility box and linked the petitioner to the offence under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the B.N.S. Act, and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that he was not in possession of the bike at the time of the raid, that the police failed to comply with Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act, and that the contraband did not belong to him. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the quantity seized, the diary entries, and the fact that the forensic report was filed before the charge sheet. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, noting the seriousness of the charges and the lack of sufficient justification for release, but allowed the petitioner to reapply after six months if the trial remained pending.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seizure of a large quantity of narcotics.
- Whether the police complied with procedural requirements under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the seized contraband can be attributed to the petitioner’s possession.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 50, 52, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- possession
- procedural compliance
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83367 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Pankaj Singh S/o Shivjee Singh R/o Mohalla - Bhaiya Phulwariya, P.S.-
Bhalubani, Distt.- Devariya, U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar. Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No. 167 of 2024 instituted for
the offence under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and
Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26
and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that from the bike of
the petitioner, altogether 1.362 kg of charas like narcotic
substance was recovered from the utility box of the bike.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He further
submitted that in this case, police has not followed Section 50 and
52 of the N.D.P.S. Act and that nothing has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner as from the case of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83367 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
2/2
prosecution, it is clear that at the time of seizure, the petitioner
was not on bike and it is alleged that he along with others was
having conversation with each other at that time, the raid was
made. The bike was parked there. He has further submitted that
though the bike is of this petitioner but the contraband does not
belong to him. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody
since 02.05.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of regular bail and has submitted that from the
possession of this petitioner, altogether 1.362 kg of charas like
narcotic substance was recovered and from perusal the diary, it is
also clear that the FSL report regarding the seized material is
received before filing of the charge sheet.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case as stated
above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at
this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…