Patna High Court
Birju Yadav @ Vikash Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Birju Yadav, was implicated in a case under Sections 8(B), 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged involvement in opium cultivation on 24.99 acres of forest land. He contended that he has a clean antecedent and that the FIR does not disclose how his name was identified, arguing that the forest officials themselves were responsible for the cultivation. The State and the Narcotics Control Bureau opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court examined the material on record, noted the lack of specific incriminating evidence against the petitioner, and considered the principle of liberty under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions laid down by the trial court. The order was pronounced by Justice Satyavrat Verma.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act allegations.
- Whether the FIR and material disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — s. 482(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 18, 29, 8(B)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- opium cultivation
- forest land
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87729 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Birju Yadav @ Vikash Kumar Yadav S/o Mahadev Yadav Resident of Village-
Piprahi Harnahi, P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gayaji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through the Narcotic Commissioner, New Delhi New
Delhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
For the NCB : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the NCB Mr. Bindhyachal Rai.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(B), 18, 29
of NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that a team was constituted by the Department of Forest
for destroying opium cultivation and 24.99 acres of forest land
was cleared of opium cultivation on different dates, next alleges
that on enquiry, local villagers disclosed the name of 16 accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87729 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
persons including the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a persons with clean antecedent and has been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is
that 24.99 acres of forest land was cleared of opium cultivation.
It is next submitted that it is the duty of the authorities of the
forest to ensure that forest is clean but then the forest officials
instead of keeping the forest clean are indulging in cultivation of
opium and when information reaches, the higher authorities FIR
of the nature as alleged is instituted. It is submitted that the FIR
does not even remotely discloses that as to who disclosed the
name of the accused persons including the petitioner that they
were involved in opium cultivation over forest land. It is also
submitted that it does not appear probable that on such large
tract of forest land, the opium could have been cultivated
without the connivance of the forest authorities.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the NCB opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87729 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case
is pending/successor court in connection with Barachatti P.S.
Case No.83/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…