Patna High Court
Aman yadav @ Sanni @ Aman Yadav SanniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Aman Yadav, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 8(C) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of brown sugar. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the statement of co‑accused Vicky Kumar, who named the petitioner, and on the seizure of 23.84 kg of brown sugar from Kumar’s house. The petitioner argued that he was innocent, had no criminal antecedent, was not present at the scene, and that the co‑accused had already been granted bail, making his own bail request stronger. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s involvement could not be dismissed outright. Considering the clean antecedent, the grant of bail to the co‑accused, the submission of the charge‑sheet and the lack of any likelihood of evidence tampering, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act for offences under Sections 8(C) and 21(b).
- Whether there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses if bail is granted.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the bail granted to the co‑accused justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 8(C)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug possession
- Section 8C
- Section 21b
- criminal procedure
- evidence tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88044 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Aman yadav @ Sanni @ Aman Yadav Sanni Son of Raj Kumar Ray @ Ram
Kumar Rai Resident of village- Jitwapur Bule Chak PS- Samastipur Muffasil
Dist -Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
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
Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 8(C) and 21(b) of the NDPS
Act.
3. As per prosecution case, altogether 23.84 brown
sugar along with other apparatus was recovered from the house
of apprehended co-accused Vicky Kumar and he disclosed the
name of the petitioner and other who fled away from the place
of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88044 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
2/4
alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that except disclosure of the
said apprehended co-accused, there is nothing on record to
demonstrate the complicity of the present petitioner with the
alleged occurrence. He further submits that the apprehended co-
accused Vicky Kumar, upon whose disclosure the name of the
petitioner has been transpired in this case, has already been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide Cr.
Misc. No. 49328 of 2024 and the case of present petitioner
stands on better footing. Hence, petitioner also deserves bail.
Petitioner is in custody since 12.08.2025 and he bears no
criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in the
case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the
prosecution evidence. Petitioner is not found at the place of
occurrence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that involvement
of petitioner in the present case cannot be outrightly rejected.
Hence, he does not deserve bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, petitioner is not found at the place of
occurrence, keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioner, co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88044 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
3/4
accused has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, 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. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur in connection with
Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88044 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
4/4
nature of offences in future, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel his bail bond.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/-
U T
Checking your session…