Patna High Court – Orders
Shree Raj Ghosh @ Raj Ghosh vs The Union Of India Through The … on 25 July, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18574 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2020 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Shree Raj Ghosh @ Raj Ghosh S/O Shyamal Ghosh Resident of Village-
Shamleshwari Colony, Modipara, P.S- Town, District- Sambalpur (Orissa).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau
(NCB),Patna Zonal Unit Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shail Kumari, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 25-07-2025
Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Ms. Shail Kumari, learned Central Government
Counsel.
2. Application for grant of bail to the petitioner, who
is in custody in connection with Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No.
141 of 2020, arising out of NCB Case No.
NCB/PZU/V/10/2020, registered for the offences punishable
under Section 8(c) read with sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 and 35 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act‘)
3. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the
petitioner, as earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner stood
negated by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 58134 of 2021 vide order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
2/10
dated 10.10.2022 taking note of the materials available on
record, apart from the statements of the petitioner recorded
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as also considering the
rigors provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
since the prayer for bail of the petitioner stood negated by this
Court considering the merit of the case and, as such, he is not
going into the merit of the case. However, this fact cannot be
ignored that the alleged recovery has been made from a truck
having registration No. UP 53CT 0913 and two persons namely,
Vicky Sharma and Upendra Kumar Yadav were apprehended
with 607 kgs. of ganja. The said Vicky Sharma disclosed the
name of the consignor of ganja and on the disclosure made, a
raid was conducted at the whereabouts of the petitioner, who, at
that point of time, was staying in Mamta Hotel, Bakhtiyarpur
and thus, the petitioner along with one Sheikh Sammiullah was
apprehended. Both the persons have also disclosed the name of
Basishtha Kumar and Surendra Kumar Ray @ Surendra Kumar
as the consignee of the seized ganja; they were also later on
apprehended. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that
Sheikh Sammiullah, who was also apprehended along with the
petitioner, has been allowed bail by this Court in Cr.Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
3/10
57203 of 2021 vide order dated 10.10.2022 itself, taking note of
the fact that his complicity in the crime was only to the extent
that his vehicle was hired by co-accused Raj Ghosh through a
travel agency and prior to that there had never been any
association of the petitioner for assisting in trafficking of Ganja
and other narcotic substance. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner further contended that co-accused Bashisht Kumar @
Bashishtha Kumar and Surendra Kumar Ray @ Surendra
Kumar have also been accorded the privilege of bail considering
their period of incarceration and no likelihood of the conclusion
of the trial in near future vide order dated 29.11.2024 in Cr.
Misc. No. 66521 of 2024 with Cr. Misc. No. 71027 of 2024,
copies of both the orders have been placed on record.
5. Referring to the aforesaid facts, learned Advocate
for the petitioner further contended that now the petitioner has
been incarcerated for over a period of 4 years and 10 months
and till date there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial.
6. Heavy reliance has been placed on a decision
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Muslim @ Hussain vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 352] and further a decision rendered in the case of
Surendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
4/10
Anr. [(2022) 10 SCC 51]. It is lastly urged before this Court that
though the petitioner has four criminal antecedent but not of the
identical nature with the present case. The disclosure of all the
cases have been made in the supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner and, as such the petitioner bears four
criminal antecedent.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Union
of India has submitted that during the course of investigation
ample materials have come which suggest that the petitioner has
played a role of consignor of the recovered ganja and he was
found in touch with other accused persons; moreover on the
disclosure made by the petitioner and one another co-accused
person, consignee of ganja were also apprehended.
8. Before parting with the present case, this Court
deems it fit and proper to take note of the order passed by this
Court in Cr. Misc. No. 66521 of 2024 with Cr. Misc. No. 71027
of 2024, wherein while allowing the prayer for bail, this Court
has observed as follows:
“9…… The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
2023 SCC Online SC 352, wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its Paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 has
held as follows:
“22. Before parting, it would be
important to reflect that laws
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
5/10which impose stringent conditions
for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if
trials are not concluded in time,
the injustice wrecked on the
individual is immeasurable. Jails
are overcrowded and their living
conditions, more often than not,
appalling.
23. The danger of unjust
imprisonment, is that inmates are
at risk of “prisonisation” a term
described by the Kerala High
Court in A Convict Patna High
Court CR. MISC. No.35866 of
2024(4) dt.11- 09-2024 4/9
Prisoner v. State, 1993 SCC
OnLine Ker 127 “a radical
transformation” whereby the
prisoner: “loses his identity. He is
known by a number. He loses
personal possessions. He has no
personal relationships.
Psychological problems result
from loss of freedom, status,
possessions, dignity any autonomy
of personal life. The inmate
culture of prison turn out to be
dreadful. The prisoner becomes
hostile by ordinary standards.
Self- perception changes.”
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar [1980 1 SCC 81] has in no uncertain
terms held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India
includes within its ambit the right to speedy trial and
the procedure under which a person is deprived of
personal liberty, should be reasonable, fair and just.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
6/10
In case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr. [(2022) 10 SCC 51], the
Court has observed as follows:
64. Under this provision, when a
person has undergone detention for a
period extending to one-half of the
maximum period of imprisonment
specified for that offence, he shall be
released by the court on his personal
bond with or without sureties. The
word “shall” clearly denotes the
mandatory compliance of this
provision. We do feel that there is not
even a need for a bail application in a
case of this nature particularly when
the reasons for delay are not
attributable against the accused. We
are also conscious of the fact that
while taking a decision the Public
Prosecutor is to be heard, and the
court, if it is of the view that there is a
need for continued detention longer
than one- half of the said period, has
to do so. However, such an exercise of
power is expected to be undertaken
sparingly being an exception to the
general rule. Once again, we have to
reiterate that “bail is the rule and jail
is an exception” coupled with the
principle governing the presumption
of innocence. We have no doubt in our
mind that this provision is a
substantive one, facilitating liberty,
being the core intendment of Article
21. The only caveat as furnished
under the Explanation being the delay
in the proceeding caused on account
of the accused to be excluded. This
Court in Bhim Singh v. Union of India
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
7/10[Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015)
13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri)
663], while dealing with the aforesaid
provision, has directed that : (SCC pp.
606-07, paras 5-6)
“5. Having given our thoughtful
consideration to the legislative policy
engrafted in Section 436-A and large
number of undertrial prisoners
housed in the prisons, we are of the
considered view that some order
deserves to be passed by us so that the
undertrial prisoners do not continue
to be detained in prison beyond the
maximum period provided under
Section 436-A.
6. We, accordingly, direct that
jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief
Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge
shall hold one sitting in a week in
each jail/prison for two months
commencing from 1- 10-2014 for the
purposes of effective implementation
of Section 436-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. In its sittings in
jail, the above judicial officers shall
identify the undertrial prisoners who
have completed half period of the
maximum period or maximum period
of imprisonment provided for the said
offence under the law and after
complying with the procedure
prescribed under Section 436-A pass
an appropriate order in jail itself for
release of such undertrial prisoners
who fulfil the requirement of Section
436-A for their release immediately.
Such jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief
Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
8/10
shall submit the report of each of such
sittings to the Registrar General of the
High Court and at the end of two
months, the Registrar General of
each High Court shall submit the
report to the Secretary General of this
Court without any delay. To facilitate
compliance with the above order, we
direct the Jail Superintendent of each
jail/prison to provide all necessary
facilities for holding the court sitting
by the above judicial officers. A copy
of this order shall be sent to the
Registrar General of each High
Court, who in turn will communicate
the copy of the order to all sessions
Judges within his State for necessary
compliance.”
“11 . Suffice it to observe that right of the speedy
trial of an accused is his fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although,
Section 37 of NDPS Act stipulates certain conditions
regarding grant of bail in case of recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband, but the said
conditions itself diluted when the fundamental right
of the accused of speedy trial is, per se, violated, is
the mandate of the Apex Court.”
9. The position is admitted that the petitioner has
spent almost 4 years 10 months behind the bar and still, as it
appears from the status report, out of 12 witnesses, only 5
witnesses have been examined and thus there is no likelihood of
the conclusion of the trial in near future.
10. In the afore noted circumstances, keeping the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
9/10
petitioner behind the bar would, in the opinion of this Court,
certainly be infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner.
11. In view of the settled legal proposition of law and
the period of incarceration, coupled with the fact that other co-
accused persons have been enlarged on bail taking note of their
period of incarceration, let the petitioner, named above, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge-II,
NDPS Act, Patna in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 141 of
2020, arising out of NCB Case No. NCB/PZU/V/10/2020,
subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close
relatives of the petitioner with the further conditions, which are
as follows:-
(i) The petitioner will cooperate in
conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and
every date of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the
evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the
disposal of trial.
(iv) In the event of default of two
consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail
bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) The court below shall verify the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18574 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025
10/10criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed
his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take
immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in
terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be
delayed for this purpose or in the name of
verification.
(vi) The petitioner shall also deposit/furnish
proof of his permanent address with the name and
mobile number of two of his close family members.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U T