Patna High Court
Jamaluddin DhuniyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner with a bond of Rs. 25,000 and specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Jamaluddin Dhuniya, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 4.8 kg of ganja recovered from his bag. The prosecution argued that the quantity was substantial and warranted denial of bail, while the petitioner contended innocence, lack of prior criminal record, and procedural lapses in the seizure process, including non‑compliance with Section 185 of the BNSS Act. The court noted that a charge sheet had already been filed, there was no risk of evidence tampering, and the petitioner had been in custody since August 2025. Balancing the facts, the court decided to grant bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial attendance and non‑interference with evidence. The bail order was conditioned on the petitioner’s cooperation and allowed cancellation for any breach.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act for possession of 4.8 kg of ganja.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Section 185 of the BNSS Act regarding seizure documentation were complied with.
- Whether the existence of a charge sheet and the absence of a risk of evidence tampering justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act — s. 185
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(B), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug possession
- quantity of narcotics
- procedural compliance
- seizure list
- charge sheet
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87543 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2025 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Jamaluddin Dhuniya S/o Husaid Dhuniya R/o Village - Parsa, P.S - Parsa
Bazar, District - Sarlahi, Country - Nepal
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 239 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 8, 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioner is said to have
been apprehended by the police personnel and upon search, 4.8
kg. ganja like substance was recovered from the bag of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence
as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this
case. Petitioner is in custody since 18.08.2025 and bears no
criminal antecedent. He further submits that mandatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87543 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
provision of Section 185 BNSS has not been followed as while
preparing the seizure list no audio-video graphics has been
made. He further submits that alleged recovery of 4.8 kg. ganja
from bag of the petitioner is more than small quantity and much
less than commercial quantity. He further submits that alleged
recovery has been made in day light i.e. 12:10 PM but no
independent witness has been made seizure list witnesses rather
both the seizure list witnesses are member of police team.
Learned counsel orally submits that charge sheet has been
submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering
with the prosecution evidence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that 4.8 kg.
ganja was recovered from the bag of the petitioner and hence, he
does not deserve bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, keeping in view clean antecedent of
petitioner, charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there
is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence,
argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into
consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner
above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87543 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Sitamarhi in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case
No. 239 of 2025, subject to following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother
or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the
affidavit in bail application.
(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain
present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates
without appropriate permission, would be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offences in future, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel his bail bond.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.