Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Nigam Kumar @ Naman KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Nigam Kumar, was arrested for alleged possession of 1.038 kg of charas and charged under sections 336(2), 317(4), 317(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. He sought regular bail, contending that the seized substance was not in his conscious possession, that the seizure was effected without complying with Section 105 of the BNSS, and that the charge‑sheet was filed without the mandatory forensic scientific laboratory (FSL) report. He further argued that the charge‑sheet was filed beyond the 180‑day period prescribed under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 of the NDPS Act without any extension being granted, entitling him to default bail. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. After considering the submissions and noting that a co‑accused had earlier been granted bail, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite alleged possession of a commercial quantity of charas.
  • Whether the failure to comply with Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the absence of an FSL report vitiate the charge‑sheet.
  • Whether default bail under Section 36(a) sub‑clause 4 of the NDPS Act applies due to delay beyond 180 days without a valid extension.
  • Whether the seriousness of the offences under the NDPS Act warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • default bail
  • charge sheet
  • forensic scientific laboratory report
  • Section 105
  • possession of charas
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91586 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Nigam Kumar @ Naman Kumar Son of Raju Yadav R/o Village - Jurabganj,
                 Nayka Tola, P.S. - Kodha, Dist. - Katihar.          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-01-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under section 336 (2), 317

                   (4), 317 (5) of the BNS and Section 20(B), ii (c) of the N.D.P.S.

                   Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution is that                   from the

                   possession of this petitioner altogether 1.038 KG of ‘charas’

                   like substance was recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further

                   submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

                   possession of this petitioner. It is further submitted that all the

                   seizure list witnesses are police personnel and that while making

                   the alleged seizure, the police has not followed the mandatory

                   provision of Section 105 of the BNSS. It is further submitted

                   that from perusal of the charge sheet, it would transpire that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91586 of 2025(2) dt.30-01-2026
                                            2/3




          charge sheet has been submitted without the FSL report

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his

          prayer is twofold: firstly, that nothing has been recovered from

          the conscious possession of this petitioner and secondly that the

          charge sheet has been filed without FSL report.

                         6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner

          has relied an order of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in

          Cr. Misc. No. 65898 of 2023, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench

          has opined that from reading of Section 36(a) sub-clause 4 of

          the NDPS Act, it appears that in the case of offence punishable

          under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27(a) or for offences

          involving commercial quantity, the charge-sheet can be

          submitted within 180 days and if the charge-sheet is not

          submitted within 180 days, the accused person is entitled for

          default bail. The proviso to Section 37(a) speaks that public

          prosecutor may take an extension of time for filing the charge-

          sheet and 180 days time can be extended for a period up to one

          year. After the public prosecutor files that progress report of the

          investigation and gives specific reasons for detention of the

          accused beyond the said period of 180 days.

                       7. It is further submitted that under the provision of

          law, investigation of the case is required to be completed within
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91586 of 2025(2) dt.30-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                      a period of six months which may be extended for every six

                      months on the prayer of Special Public Prosecutor, however, no

                      such extension was sought or granted in the present case.

                                   8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

                      submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody

                      since 12.02.2025 having no criminal antecedent. Moreover,

                      similarly situated other co-accused person has already been

                      granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in

                      Cr. Misc. No. 38414 of 2025.

                                   9. Learned APP appearing for the State has

                      vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.

                                   10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is

                      inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                      petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with

                      Lauriya P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of

                      Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                      each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge

                      (NDPS), Bettiah, West Champaran.


                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.