Pritam Kumar vs The Union Of India Through Narcotics … on 16 April, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Pritam Kumar vs The Union Of India Through Narcotics … on 16 April, 2025

Author: Jitendra Kumar

Bench: Jitendra Kumar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22391 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2022 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
                                                    District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Pritam Kumar, Son of Kapil Dev Mahto, Resident of village and P.O. -
                 Basahi, P.S. - Cheriya Bariyarpur, District - Begusarai, State of Bihar

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner
                                                  Versus
                 The Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home
                 Affairs, Department of Internal Security, Karpoori Thakur Sada, Ashiana
                 Digha Road, Patna, Bihar

                                                          ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner     :      Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate.
                 For the NCB (U.O.I.)   :      Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-04-2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

N.D.P.S. Case No. 06 of 2022, N.C.B P.S. Case No.05 of 2022

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 08(c),

20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. Here, it is pertinent to mention that even prior to

the present petition for regular bail, the petitioner had preferred

Cr. Misc. 47056 of 2024 for his enlargement on bail. However,

the same was rejected vide order dated 02.08.2024 observing as

follows:-

“Considering the fundamental right of the
Petitioner to speedy trial, learned Trial Court is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22391 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2025
2/5

directed to make efforts to conclude the trial within
six months, failing which, the Petitioner would have
liberty to move this Court renewing his prayer for
regular bail”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since

31.01.2022 i.e. for three years two months and 16 days and trial

is not concluded till date. He further submits that if the

petitioner continues to be in custody, it would be gross violation

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also relies upon the

judgment of Md. Muslim alias Hussain Vrs. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 166 to argue that the expeditious trial is

an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and

while considering undue delay in trial, Section 37 of the

N.D.P.S. Act does not come in the way. He also submits that

even on merit, recovery has been made from a truck not

belonging to the petitioner, nor is any recovery of any

contraband from the possession of the petitioner. Only evidence

against the petitioner is confessional statement of co-accused

recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act which is not

admissible in the eye of law after celebrated judgment of Tofan

Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22391 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2025
3/5

petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail

petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier

either for anticipatory bail or regular one.

7. However, learned counsel for the N.C.B.

vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail

submitting that 547 Kg. Ganja was recovered from a truck

bearing registration No. NL-01G-5946 and as per the

confessional statement of Driver and Khalasi of the truck, the

recovered Ganja belongs to the petitioner. Hence, the case is

covered under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and petitioner

does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. He relies upon the

judgment of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal,

(2022) 18 SCC 374.

8. I considered the submission advanced by both the

parties and perused the material on record.

9. I find that on merit the petitioner has been all along

refused to be enlarged on bail in view of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act. However, vide order dated 02.08.2024 passed by

this Court in Cr. Misc. 47056 of 2024, learned Trial Court was

directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within six months in

view of the custody of the petitioner for more than 2 and ½
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22391 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2025
4/5

years but till date trial could not be concluded. From the order

of learned Trial Court, it transpires that altogether four

Prosecution witnesses have been examined and trial is still

going on.

10. In view of the petitioner being in custody for more

than three years and two months, keeping the petitioner in

custody would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. Hence, relying upon the judgment of Md. Muslim alias

Hussain (supra), this application is allowed, directing the

petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing

bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned

court below in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 06 of 2022

subject to the condition that if the petitioner commits any

similar offence, his bail bonds will be cancelled by learned court

below and also on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner will make himself available for

interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required.

(ii) The petitioner will undertake that

investigation/trial will not get hampered on account of his

absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police

or the court whenever his presence is required.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22391 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2025
5/5

(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court

below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned

court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after

hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has

concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the

same.

(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court

below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,

learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-

U         T