Patna High Court
Vijay Saw @ Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Keshri @ Vijay Prasad KeshriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail as suspicion alone does not satisfy the evidentiary threshold required for detention under the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of villagers from Chordaha, were charged under Sections 8, 15, 18C and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for alleged cultivation of opium plants on reserved forest land. They contended that they are simple farmers with no involvement in the illegal poppy cultivation, which was discovered by forest officials, and that the FIR was based solely on suspicion. The State of Bihar and the Union of India opposed the grant of pre‑arrest bail, while the petitioners argued that no material evidence had been collected against them and they have clean antecedents. The Court observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof and cited Raghunatha & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2024 INSC 238) to support the principle that a suspect cannot be kept behind bars without substantive evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pre‑arrest bail, directing their release upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of criminal antecedents and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when the accusation is based solely on suspicion.
- Whether the provisions of Section 482(2) of the BNSS permit the Court to release the accused pending investigation.
- Whether the lack of material evidence and clean antecedents justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 15, 18C, 25, 8
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- NDPS Act
- opium cultivation
- suspicion vs proof
- forest land
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87034 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Vijay Saw @ Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Keshri @ Vijay
Prasad Keshri Son of Lakhan Saw
2. Naresh Manjhi S/o- Jagdish Manjhi.
3. Sanjay Bhuiya @ Sanjay Manjhi @ Sanjay Mandal S/o- Ramdeo Manjhi @
Botha Manjhi @ Bhotha Manjhi.
All are resident of Village - Chordaha, P.S.- Dhangai, District - Gayaji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through Narcotics Commissioner, New Delhi. New
Delhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP
For the UOI/NCB : Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC
Mr. Awdhesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Umesh Lal Verma
learned APP for the State and Mr. Awdhesh Kr. Pandey along
with Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the UOI.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 8,15,18C,25 of the
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, a team was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87034 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
constituted for the destruction of cultivated opium plant in
Chordaha reserved forest land and accordingly 5.36 acres of
illegal cultivation of opium were destroyed over different plots.
A sample of opium plant was recovered and seizure list was
prepared accordingly. It is further alleged that
accused/petitioners along with other co-accused persons, who
belong to another place, were suspected to be engaged in illegal
cultivation of opium.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the alleged place of occurrence, where
the opium plant were cultivated, is in the forest area. The
petitioners are the simple farmers of their villages and they have
no concern at all with the said forest land or premises or any
cultivation of opium plant in the said area. The forest area is
heavily guarded by the forest officers, but since the illegal
cultivation of poppy came to the knowledge of general-public,
the petitioners were made accused merely on the basis of
suspicion in the present case by the informant. The informant is
a Forest Range Officer and he has not named any forest
officials, after being informed that the poppy plants were being
cultivated in the forest area, as it appears from the FIR. No
material has been collected against the petitioners. Petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87034 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
have clean antecedents. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union
of India and learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail, however, he admits that
the forest officials has not been named in the FIR.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, the allegations made in the FIR, I find
that suspicion has been raised against the petitioners’
involvement in the alleged offence of cultivation of poppy
plants in the forest area. No recovery has been made from the
house of the petitioners and the petitioners have been made
accused in the present case on the basis of suspicion, the law in
this regard is well settled as in case of Raghunatha & Anr. v/s
State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 238, wherein the Apex Court
held that, a strong suspicion, howsoever, cannot take the place
of proof and for suspicion and under-trial cannot be kept behind
the bar, even after completion of investigation. I am of the
opinion that petitioners, who are having clean antecedents,
have, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87034 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.
Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Gayaji / Concerned Court in connection
with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found
that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as
what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…