Patna High Court – Orders
Govind vs The State Of Bihar on 27 June, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25787 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Gaya
======================================================
Govind S/O Surendra @ Surender @ Surenda Pal R/O Vill.- Nayari, P.S.-
Usara, Dist.- Badayun, U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 27-06-2025
Heard Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The application for grant of bail to the petitioner,
who is in custody in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 43 of
2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8,
20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner came to
be rejected by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 56534
of 2021 vide order dated 17.10.2022 taking note of the fact that
the petitioner alongwith one another co-accused were
apprehended, while they were running a truck from where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
2/9
altogether 180 kgs ganja was recovered. Aggrieved with the
order of this Court, the petitioner preferred Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 30026 of 2024 after a delay of
541 days. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the prolonged
incarceration and also the fact that the trial had not commenced
due to the fault of prosecution, extended liberty to the petitioner
and the co-accused person to approach the Trial Court for grant
of bail. It was also directed to the Trail Court to consider the
prayer for bail of the petitioner in the light of the judgment
pronounced by the Apex Court. In pursuant to the liberty
extended in the afore-noted Special Leave Petition, the
petitioner approached before the Trial Court; however, despite
the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated for over a
period of four years and till date not a single witness is
examined, the learned trial Court taking note of the decision
rendered in the case of Union of India. Vs. Shiv Shanker
Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798; Union of India Vs. Ratan Mallik @
Habul, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831 as also the decision in State of
Kerela Vs. Rajesh, AIR 2020 SC 721 negated the prayer of the
petitioner.
4. From perusal of the order passed by the learned
trial court, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, it would be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
3/9
evident that the entire emphasis was given on the rigors
provided under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act; and the caution
directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to ascertain as to
whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence and further he is not likely to
commit offence under the said Act.
5. Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, learned Advocate for the
petitioner taking this Court through the order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has submitted that the observation
made by the Apex Court has been clearly overlooked by the
learned trial court while rejecting the prayer for bail of the
petitioner, inasmuch as, the factum of prolong incarceration has
been completely overlooked. It is further contended that the trial
court only considered the rigors provided under Sections 37(i)
(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act but did not follow the mandate of the
Apex Court rendered in various decisions wherein the Court has
underscore the precious right provided under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, that 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”.
6. Reliance has been placed on a decision rendered in
the case of Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha [Special Leave
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
4/9
to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4169/2023] wherein the Hon’ble Court
while taking note of the fact that the appellant was incarcerated
for over a period of three and half years and there was no
likelihood of the conclusion of the trial accorded the privilege of
bail by holding the prolonged incarceration, generally militates
against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the
conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created
under Section 37(1(b)Iii) of the NDPS Act.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submitted that the materials available on record
clearly demonstrate that on secret information, the Excise
officials intercepted a truck and on search huge quantity of 180
kgs. of ganja was recovered. The petitioner was found present
in the truck along with one Biresh and both of them are said to
be driver and khalasi respectively. The order impugned came to
be passed in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
taking note of the limitation imposed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
of the NDPS Act.
8. Before parting with the case, it would be pertinent
to state here that in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
5/9
Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 while emphasizing on
the issue of expeditious disposal of the trial, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has, in no uncertain terms, held that the 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”.
9. It would also be relevant to refer the decision
rendered in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. 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 which 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
Prisoner v. State, 1993 SCC OnLine Ker 127 “a
radical transformation” whereby the prisoner:
“loses his identity. He is known by a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
6/9number. 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. This Court also thinks it worth benefiting to
encapsulate the relevant extract of the decision in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation
[(2022) 10 SCC 51] wherein the Court while reiterating the
celebrated principles, “the bail is the rule and jail is the
exception” has held in paragraph no. 64 as follows:
“64. Now we shall come to category (C). We do
not wish to deal with individual enactments as
each special Act has got an objective behind it,
followed by the rigor imposed. The general
principle governing delay would apply to these
categories also. To make it clear, the provision
contained in Section 436A of the Code would
apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of
any specific provision. For example, the rigor as
provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
not come in the way in such a case as we are
dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel
that more the rigor, the quicker the adjudication
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
7/9ought to be. After all, in these types of cases
number of witnesses would be very less and there
may not be any justification for prolonging the
trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the
directions of this Court to expedite the process and
also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the
Code.”
11. The reliance placed by the petitioner on a decision
rendered in Rabi Prakash (supra) also finds support to the case
of the present petitioner, who has been incarcerated since
19.04.2021 i.e., for more than four years two months.
12. On the last occasion, when the matter was taken
up, this Court had directed the learned trial court to submit a
report regarding the present status of the trial in question. The
report clearly suggests that though charge has been framed on
06.08.2022 and the record is running for prosecution evidence,
but till date no witness has been examined.
13. From the discussions made hereinabove, it is
obvious that Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly stipulates
rigorous conditions regarding grant of bail in case of recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband, but such condition in itself
get diluted, when the fundamental right of the accused of speedy
trial is per se violated. The right to speedy trial of an accused is
undoubtedly his fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
8/9
Constitution of India.
14. In the case in hand, admittedly the petitioner has
been incarcerated in custody for over a period of four years and
two months; nonetheless, any witness has been examined, thus
there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near
future. In such circumstances, keeping the petitioner behind the
bar would certainly infringe the fundamental right of the
petitioner. This Court has also been informed that the petitioner
bears absolute fair antecedent.
15. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, let
the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Gaya in connection with NDPS
Case No. 43 of 2021, subject to the condition that one of the
bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25787 of 2025(3) dt.27-06-2025
9/9intimidate 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.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U T