Disposed¶29

Bhola Sao @ Bhola Sah v. the Union of India through Director N.C.B. Patna

Patna HC18 Nov 2025CR. APP (DB)/146/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence modification in NDPS conviction: Patna HC confirms conviction of Bhola Sao @ Bhola Sah under Sections 20B (ii) (c) and 29 NDPS Act for ~7 kg Hashish/Charas possession and conspiracy; reduces default imprisonment from 2 years to 1 year 6 months (concurrent) after 13 years 8 months' custody since Feb 2012; directs NCB to destroy seized narcotic after SLP window; Criminal Appeal (DB) 146/2019, decided 18-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of: order of conviction confirmed, order of sentence modified — default imprisonment for non-payment of fine reduced from 2 years to 1 year 6 months, running concurrently on both counts, with direction to release the appellant from the correctional home if that period is complete. ¶29

Bhola Sao @ Bhola Sah Vs the Union of India through Director… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgement of conviction and sentence under Sections 20B (ii) (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act passed by the Special Judge should stand on appeal. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The order of conviction recorded by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act is confirmed; only the order of sentence is modified.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Incarceration in the correctional home for more than 13 years surely makes the appellant a reformed and changed person; he has suffered adequate sentence for the offence committed by him.

¶24

Key takeaways

The part of sentence for non-payment of fine is modified from 2 years to 1 year and 6 months; the 1 year 6 months default sentence on both counts shall run concurrently, and the appellant shall be released from the correctional home if that period is found to be over.ratio¶24
Operative direction: the NCB is directed to dispose of and destroy the seized narcotic substance after expiry of the period for Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; interim applications disposed of with the appeal.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (DB), Criminal Appeal (DB) No.146 of 2019, decided 18-11-2025 (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.; Dr. Anshuman, J.). Appeal by Bhola Sao @ Bhola Sah against conviction by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act for offences under Section 20B (ii) (c) (illegal possession of Hashish/Charas weighing about 7 Kg, contravening Section 8) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act; sentenced to 12 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1.50 Lakh and 2 years' default imprisonment on each count, substantive sentences concurrent and default sentences separate. Appellant, in custody since 16-02-2012 (about 13 years 8 months), pressed only for sentence modification; NCB raised no objection. Court held that over 13 years' incarceration made him a reformed person who had suffered adequate sentence; conviction confirmed, default sentence reduced to 1 year 6 months on each count, to run concurrently, with release upon completion. NCB directed to dispose of and destroy the seized narcotic after expiry of the SLP period before the Supreme Court. Appeal disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.146 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2012 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.

¶3

District- Patna

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Bhola Sao @ Bhola Sah, Son Of Gopi Chand Sah @ Gopi Chand Sao Resident Of Nagwa Chowk, Near Baba Hotel Birganj, P.S.- Birta Chowk, District- Parsa, Nepal.

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Union Of India Through Director N.C.B. Patna Government Of India

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

=============== Appearance : For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s For the NCB (UOI) ===============	======================================= : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate : Mr.S.D.Sanjay(ADSG) : Mr.Bindhyachal Rai, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate =======================================
CORAM: HONOU and HONOUR	RABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶11

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

¶12

8 18-11-2025

¶13

The instant appeal is directed against a judgement of conviction and sentence whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act found the appellant / convict guilty for committing offence under Section 20B (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act for illegal possession of Hashish / Charas weighing about 7 Kg in contravention of Section 8 of NDPS Act and also under Section 29 of the NDPS Act for being a party to the criminal conspiracy for illegal possession and transportation of narcotic drug.

¶14

After framing of charge, the prosecuting agency

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.146 of 2019(8) dt.18-11-2025 2/4

¶16

examined four witnesses and some documents relating to seizure of the narcotic substance from the possession of the appellant were marked exhibits. The learned Trial Judge on careful consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant guilty for committing offence under Sections 20B (ii) (c) / 29 of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

¶17

Against the said judgement and order of conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred appeal.

¶18

At the time of hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that he does not have anything to submit with regard to the evidence on record or finding of the Court holding the appellant guilty for the afore-mentioned offence. However, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant makes his submission with regard to the sentence. It is submitted by him that for the offence under Section 20B (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act, the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 12 years with fine of Rs. 1.50 Lakh and in default of fine, imprisonment for further period of 2 years. For the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the same amount of punishment was granted by the Trial Court. It was directed that the substantial offence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. However punishment for

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.146 of 2019(8) dt.18-11-2025 3/4

¶20

imprisonment for non-payment of fine shall run separately.

¶21

The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is confined to the correctional home since 16^th of February, 2012. He has already completed incarceration for 13 years 8 months. Therefore, he prays for modification of the sentencing order so that he may be released at an early date.

¶22

Learned Advocate on behalf of the NCB also submits that the appellant has suffered substantial period of his sentence. If he is given liberty to be released after the period of long incarceration, NCB has no objection.

¶23

We have considered the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

We are of the view that incarceration in the correctional home for more than 13 years surely makes the appellant a reformed and changed person. He has suffered adequate sentence for the offence committed by him. Therefore, we are inclined to modify the part of sentence for non-payment of fine amount from 2 years to 1 year and 6 months. It is also directed that the period of sentence of 1 and 6 months for nonpayment of fine in both the counts will run concurrently and if the period is found to be over by the correctional home

¶25

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.146 of 2019(8) dt.18-11-2025 4/4

¶26

authority, the appellant be released from the correctional home.

¶27

With the above order while confirming the order of

¶28

convection, we modified the order of sentence.

¶29

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

Let a copy of this order be sent to the correctional

¶31

home where the appellant is incarceration.

¶32

Let a plain copy of this order be also served to the Advocate of the appellant for taking necessary step in respect of the appellant.

¶33

With the disposal of the appeal, all interim applications, if any, be disposed of.

¶34

The NCB is directed to dispose of and destroy the seized narcotic substance after the expiry of the period Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶35

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶36

( Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶37

uttam/-

¶38

U T

Bhola Sao @ Bhola Sah v. the Union of India through Director N.C.B. Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Sao @ Bhola Sah v. the Union of India through Director N.C.B. Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Kumari Vs Shyam Chandra Verma @ Shyam Chandra Prasad

National Faceless Appeal Centre Vs Gurudwara Bal Leela Manini Sangat Trust

Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kumar Ravikant @ Ravikant Chaudhary Vs Binay Singh Chaudhary

Alamgir Sheikh @ Raju Vs The State Through N.i.a.

Ashraful Alam @ Ishraful Alam @ Fatik Vs The State Through N.i.a.