Satyadev Singh @ Sintu @ Sintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86063 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- Geedha District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Satyadev Singh @ Sintu @ Sintu Kumar Son of Jagarnath Singh R/o Kheshariya Bahiyara, P.S. - Koilwar, Dist. - Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Gidha P.S. Case No.43 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(b) and 18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, on secret information, the informant along with others reached the village and found opium plants on several plots of land and for the purpose of sampling, opium flowers/fruits were plucked and sealed and videography was also done.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is not named in the F.I.R. During course of investigation, it transpired that one of the land in question, from where the opium flower was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86063 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026 2/3 seized, was registered in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner. The petitioner is living with his parents separately, from his grandfather and he has got no concern with the alleged land in question from where the opium flowers were seized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during seizure, no independent witnesses were present and in violation of the provisions, contained in Section 102 B.N.S.S., the seizure list has been prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 18.08.2025.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S.-cum-Session Judge, District Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Gidha P.S. Case No.43 of 2025, subject to the condition that the learned court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and, in case, at any stage, it is found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86063 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026 3/3 that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the learned court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of the bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U T