Bundela Yadav @ Bundela Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4929 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2024 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna ====================================================== Bundela Yadav @ Bundela Prasad S/O Late Bhramdeo Yadav R/O VillageTeliyanpar, P.S- Punpun, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Deovind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 232 of 2025 arising out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 98 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(b), 15(b), 18(b) of the NDPS Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that from the fields of the petitioner, 5.5 kg of green poppy straw with branches was recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. He also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4929 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/3 submits that the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel. Police has not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. He also submits that from perusal of the seizure list, it is clear that the entire weight of green poppy straw with branches was 5.5 kg. During the whole investigation, it was not disclosed by the I.O. as to what was the real weight of poppy straw which has been recovered. He also submits that the recovery of alleged poppy straw is though more than a small quantity but is much less than a commercial quantity. He further submits that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 27.09.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.
6. 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 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special, (NDPS Act) Court No. 1st, Patna in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 232 of 2025 arising
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4929 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 3/3 out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 98 of 2024.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T