Patna High Court
Abhishek PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions, finding that the circumstances did not warrant continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhishek Prasad, was arrested on 25‑08‑2025 for alleged possession of 40.81 grams of heroin (smack) recovered from his helmet. He contended that he had no knowledge of the contraband, that the quantity was below the commercial threshold under the NDPS Act, and that the police failed to comply with mandatory procedures under Section 50 of the Act. The prosecution argued that the recovery from the helmet established possession and therefore bail should be denied. The court examined the material facts, the procedural lapses, and the fact that the seized amount was not a commercial quantity. Considering the petitioner’s custody period, lack of evidence of conscious possession, and the procedural deficiencies, the court ordered his release on bail subject to strict conditions. The bail order required a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial attendance, non‑tampering with evidence, and cancellation on repeat offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the alleged quantity is below commercial and procedural requirements under Section 50 were not complied with
- Whether the recovery of narcotics from the petitioner’s helmet establishes sufficient grounds to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 5, 50(1), 50(2), 50(3)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- possession of narcotics
- commercial quantity
- procedural lapse
- helmet seizure
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88121 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2025 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna
======================================================
Abhishek Prasad S/o- Shri Raju Prasad @ Raju Prasad Resident of Jail Road,
Masaurhi, P.S- Masaurhi, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Spriha Shreya, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special
Case No. 240/2025 read with Punpun P.S. Case No. 248 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Section 21(b) of
NDPS Act.
3. As per prosecution case, there is alleged recovery
of 40.81 grams of smack was recovered from the hemlet 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. The petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2025 and bears
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88121 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
two criminal antecedents which is not similar to the present
case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession
of the petitioner. He further submits that alleged recovery of
40.81 grams smack is from the hemlet of the petitioner and the
petitioner has no knowledge regarding the same. The said
recovery of smack is much below the commercial quantity as,
according to NDPS notification, 250 grams of smack comes
under the purview of the commercial quantity. Though, the
weight of seized puria is 40.81 grams, but then the alleged
quantity of smack as shown in recovery was much less than the
real weight of the alleged recovery. He further submits that the
petitioner was shopping in Punpun market after hanging the
hemlet in the motorcycle and on account of said reason the
petitioner has no knowledge about the said smack. He further
submits that the police did not comply the condition of Sections
50(1), (2), (3) and 5 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner was not
placed before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate as per
Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. Seizure list has not been
prepared as per law. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88121 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is
alleged recovery of 40.81 gms. smack from the hemlet of the
petitioner and hence, he does not deserve bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, 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. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge-I (NDPS Act), Patna in
connection with Special Case No. 240/2025 read with Punpun
P.S. Case No. 248 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88121 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
(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)
amitkumar/-
U T
Checking your session…