Sushil Pandey @ Sushil Kumar Pandey @ Nishant Kr. Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santosh Pandey, Advocate Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel

¶12

for the petitioner and Mrs. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NDSL Case No. 7 of 2025 arising out of Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 20(B)/(ii)B, 22(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶14

Prosecution case, in short, is that 1.900 kilogram of ganja has been recovered in this case.

¶15

Earlier, vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32661 of 2025 the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, subject to the condition

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2426 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026 2/3

¶17

that the Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner before acceptance of bail bonds. However, due to the mismatch in the criminal antecedents, the bail bonds of the petitioner could not be accepted.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2025 and has four criminal antecedents. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. The recovered contraband is below commercial quantity, and hence, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable in the present case. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, recovered contraband being less than the commercial quantity as also the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2426 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026 3/3

¶22

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with NDSL Case No. 7 of 2025 arising out of Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

¶24

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

¶25

(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶26

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶27

Alok Verma/-

¶28

U T

Sushil Pandey @ Sushil Kumar Pandey @ Nishant Kr. Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Pandey @ Sushil Kumar Pandey @ Nishant Kr. Pandey v. The State of Bihar

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

Gunjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Subodh Yadav @ Sanjeev Yadav @ Sanjiv Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Anwar Abbasi Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Tuntun Rishi Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar