Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16100 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2026 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Son of Rampreet Das @ Ram Prit Das R/o- Kutti Machine Gali, Renter Of Badri Rai, P.S.- Patliputra, Dist-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No.21 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 20(b) and 11(B) of the NDPS Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the possession of this petitioner and one Sameer, altogether 1.250 kg of ganja was recovered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the seizure list was jointly made regarding both the accused persons and it is not clear from the seizure list as to what amount of contraband was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. It has further been submitted that the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16100 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 police have not complied Section 105 of the BNSS while making seizure. It has further been submitted that the alleged recovery of contraband is though more than small quantity but is much less than the commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.01.2026.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State. Learned APP has submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases out of which one case is of similar nature.

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 court of learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Patna in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No.21 of 2026. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T