Anil Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: petitioner to be enlarged on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with N.D.P.S. G.R. Case No. 141 of 2025 arising out of Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, implicated in Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025 for offences under Sections 20(B)(ii)(C), 23(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act following recovery of 88.7 kg of ganja from his poultry farm, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with N.D.P.S. G.R. Case No. 141 of 2025 arising out of Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25689 of 2026, order dated 02-07-2026: Bail allowed to Anil Kumar Yadav, accused in Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025 (East Champaran) under Sections 20(B)(ii)(C), 23(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, after prosecution recovery of 88.7 kg of ganja from his poultry farm. Counsel argued the petitioner was innocent, nothing was recovered from his possession, seizure witnesses were police personnel and Section 105 of the BNSS was not complied with, and that the poultry farm stood rented to one Munna Yadav vide agreement dated 14.02.2024 leaving possession with the tenant; the State opposed bail citing three criminal antecedents. Noting custody since 10.10.2025, the Court enlarged the petitioner on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties before the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, in N.D.P.S. G.R. Case No. 141 of 2025.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25689 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-491 Year-2025 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East

Champaran

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

Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Bihari Yadav R/O Village- Chargaha, P.S-Turkauliya , District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ======================================================

... ... Opposite Party/s

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

3 02-07-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii) (C), 23(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the poultry farm of this petitioner, altogether 88.7 kg of ganja was recovered.

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 case. He also submits 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. He further submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25689 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026 2/2

though the poultry farm belongs to the petitioner, the same was given on rent to one Munna Yadav vide an agreement dated 14.02.2024. He also submits that as the petitioner has handed over

the poultry farm to Munna Yadav on rent, he is not concerned in any way with the said poultry farm; only ownership of the poultry farm is with him, whereas possession is with Munna Yadav. He lastly submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 10.10.2025.

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

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 Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with N.D.P.S. G.R. Case No. 141 of 2025 arising out of Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 491 of 2025.