Patna High Court
Billa Yadav @ Mahesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the offence is serious and the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient.
Summary
The petitioner, Billa Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a narcotics case alleging cultivation of ganja on his premises. The prosecution claimed that during a raid, three green plants weighing about 15 kg were recovered from a bari near the petitioner’s house, and the FIR was registered under Sections 20 and 20 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner argued that the plants were not in his possession, the bari did not belong to him, and that the search and seizure were not conducted in compliance with statutory requirements, citing violations of Sections 103 of the NDPS Act and several provisions of the Cr.P.C. and NDPS Act. The State opposed the bail, relying on the informant’s statements and other witness testimonies supporting the recovery. The court, considering the seriousness of the alleged offence and the evidence presented, declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the search and seizure conducted by the police complied with the procedural requirements of the NDPS Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the petitioner was in possession of the seized narcotic plants.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 100, 103, 165, 50
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 42, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- search and seizure
- possession
- drug cultivation
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87519 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Billa Yadav @ Mahesh Yadav Son of Basudev Yadav Resident of Village -
Belahi Tola, Chhathu Bigha, P.S.- Ghoshi, District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Ghoshi P.S. Case No.48 of 2025 registered for the offence
under Sections 20 and 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on 28.01.2025, at about
10.30 O'clock informant got confidential information about
cultivation of Ganja by the villagers of Belai Tola. Chhathu Tola
and on this information, the informant along with police
personnel during course of conducting raid in the houses of
other co-accused persons, reached at the house of Billa Yadav @
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87519 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
Mahesh Yadav and on search, 03 green plants of Ganja about 15
Kgs. was recovered near the house of Billa Yadav in presence of
Revenue Officer. Accordingly, the seizure list was prepared as
per law and the FIR has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged
in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that nothing
has been recovered from the conscious possession of the
petitioner. It is next submitted that a Bari was situated near the
house, where from three green plants of Ganja about 15 Kgs.
was recovered, but the said Bari was not belongs to the
petitioner, neither the petitioner was owner of the said Bari, the
said Bari is open place. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that no separate search and seizure has been prepared
by the prosecution which is absolute violation of Section 103 of
BNSS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
there is catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Court as well
as Hon'ble Apex Court, if the search and seizure has not been
prepared by the prosecution, no one can sent up for trial. Further
submits that from bare perusal of the First Information Report as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87519 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
well as seizure list, the prosecution has violated the mandatory
provision of Section 50, 100, 165 of Cr.P.C. and Section 42, 50,
52, 53, 55, 57 of NDPS Act.
5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the
anticipatory bail application.
6. The petitioner is named in the FIR and there is
allegation of recovery of three green plants of Ganja about 15
Kgs. from the land in front of the house of the petitioner. It has
also been noted by the court below that the informant in his
restatement in paragraph-3 and the witnesses in their statement
in paragraphs 4,5,6 & 7 of the case diary have supported the
prosecution case.
7. Considering all these aspects of the matter, since
the offence alleged is serious and impacts the society at large,
therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail
to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.