Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28766/2026allowed

Raju Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-05Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28766 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2024 Thana- RAIL HAJIPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Raju Kumar S/O Sunil Paswan Resident of Village - Anandpur, Post- Sonpur, P.S- Sonpur, Dist.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Hajipur Rail P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)/20(C)/22(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the possession of the petitioner, namely, Raju Kumar, altogether 22.478 kg of ganja was recovered, and from other co-accused persons, including the petitioner, a total of 90.857 kg of ganja 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

2/4 case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submission in twofold. First is that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel, and the police have not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case, the chargesheet was filed without an FSL report, cognizance was taken without an FSL report, and even the charge was framed without an FSL report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed the certified copy of the order sheet of the learned trial court, which goes to show that on 26.02.2026, the I.O. submitted that FSL report in the court. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.10.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84487 of 2024 and in that order, this court has relied on an order of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65898 of 2023 wherein the learned 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

3/4 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. In the present case, the Special Public Prosecutor has not filed any application for extension of period of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet as per the contention of the petitioner has been filed without FSL report.

6. In the case of Rabi Prakash vs. the State of Odisha, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the prolonged incarceration generally militate against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37 sub-clause 1(b) of the NDPS Act. The charge-sheet filed without FSL report does not ipso facto creates any embargo against the fundamental right of a citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

4/4

7. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of four cases.

8. 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 District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge NDPS, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Rail P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 corresponding to NDPS Case G.R. No. 21 of 2025.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T