Patna High Court
Gaurav KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that pre‑arrest bail cannot be granted until the forensic laboratory report confirms whether the seized material is smack; if it is, the petitioner must surrender and seek regular bail, otherwise bail may be released on conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Gaurav Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in an NDPS case alleging possession of 35 g of a smack‑like substance and cash, based solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement. He argued that the statement has no evidentiary value, he was not present at the scene, and the seized material had not yet been forensic‑tested. The State contended that the bail application was untenable and that the petitioner’s alleged complicity could not be dismissed. The High Court noted the lack of forensic confirmation of the seized material and directed the District Court to obtain the FSL report; if the material is confirmed as diacetylmorphine, the petitioner must surrender and seek regular bail, otherwise he may be released on pre‑arrest bail. The court also ordered verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, stating that any adverse finding would nullify the order. The bail application was consequently disposed of pending the forensic report.
Issues considered
- Can pre‑arrest bail be granted when the nature of the seized narcotic substance has not been forensicly confirmed?
- Does a co‑accused’s confessional statement alone suffice to implicate another person for bail considerations?
- Does the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affect the grant of pre‑arrest bail?
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(b), 8(C)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 8C
- Section 21b
- confessional statement
- forensic laboratory report
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89272 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Gaurav Kumar S/O Bivishan Yadav @ Vipin Kumar Ray R/O Village-
Raghunathpur Karari, Ward No. 04, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, District-
Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saket Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Saket Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with NDPS Case No. 44/2025 arising out of Sahebpur Kamal
P.S. Case No.212/2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable
under Sections 8(C)/21(b) of NDPS Act.
3. Allegation is under Sections 8(C)/21(b) of NDPS
Act for alleged recovery of 35 grams of smack like product, as
well as, cash of Rs.22,000/- from possession of apprehended
co-accused Shatrughan Yadav from whose possession, the entire
seized quantity was recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89272 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s name has surfaced in
this case on the basis of confessional statement of said
Shatrughan Yadav, with whom the petitioner has inimical terms.
Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is innocent,
though one criminal case is pending against him, as per the
information given in paragraph no.3 of the bail application and
for the said reason, he has been implicated in the present case on
the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, which has no
evidentiary value. Learned counsel further submitted that from
the perusal of the FIR, it appears that suspicion has been raised
that the articles which have been seized are smack like material
and unless and until it is examined by the Forensic Science
Laboratory and report furnished in that regard, the petitioner
should not face prosecution for the alleged offence under
Section 8(C)/21(b) of NDPS Act merely on suspicion when he
was not present at the place of occurrence. On these grounds,
petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State
submitted that the present bail application is not maintainable
and as such, the petitioner can seek appropriate remedy in
accordance with law, otherwise also, the complicity of the
petitioner cannot be denied as he has been named in the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89272 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused from
whose possession, huge quantity of smack like material has
been recovered and seized.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR and the seizure list, the petitioner has denied
his allegation on the ground that he is not connected with the co-
accused on whose confessional statement, he has been named in
the FIR in course of investigation and it is also not clear, as to
whether, the seized items are smack or not. In such
circumstances, I direct the learned District Court to call for the
FSL report and see whether the seized items have been reported
to be smack. In case, the same is smack (diacetylmorphine) ,
then in that case, the petitioner don’t deserve to be released
on pre-arrest bail and he is required to surrender and seek
regular bail before the learned District Court.
7. In case, if seized items are found not to be smack
(diacetylmorphine), then in that case, the petitioner is directed to
be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with NDPS Case
No. 44/2025 arising out of Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case
No.212/2025 on such terms and conditions, as the learned
District Court deems it fit and proper.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89272 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the
petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what has been
stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will
automatically lose its force.
9. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…