IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88121 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2025 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna ====================================================== Abhishek Prasad S/o- Shri Raju Prasad @ Raju Prasad Resident of Jail Road, Masaurhi, P.S- Masaurhi, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Spriha Shreya, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 240/2025 read with Punpun P.S. Case No. 248 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act. 3. As per prosecution case, there is alleged recovery of 40.81 grams of smack was recovered from the hemlet of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2025 and bears Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88121 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 2/4 two criminal antecedents which is not similar to the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that alleged recovery of 40.81 grams smack is from the hemlet of the petitioner and the petitioner has no knowledge regarding the same. The said recovery of smack is much below the commercial quantity as, according to NDPS notification, 250 grams of smack comes under the purview of the commercial quantity. Though, the weight of seized puria is 40.81 grams, but then the alleged quantity of smack as shown in recovery was much less than the real weight of the alleged recovery. He further submits that the petitioner was shopping in Punpun market after hanging the hemlet in the motorcycle and on account of said reason the petitioner has no knowledge about the said smack. He further submits that the police did not comply the condition of Sections 50(1), (2), (3) and 5 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner was not placed before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate as per Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. Seizure list has not been prepared as per law. Learned counsel orally submits that charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. 5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88121 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 3/4 the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is alleged recovery of 40.81 gms. smack from the hemlet of the petitioner and hence, he does not deserve bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge-I (NDPS Act), Patna in connection with Special Case No. 240/2025 read with Punpun P.S. Case No. 248 of 2025, subject to following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application. (ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself. (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. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88121 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 4/4 (iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offences in future, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail bond. amitkumar/- (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) U T