Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Tapseya Gond vs The State Of Bihar on 7 March, 2025
Author: Ashok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 88013 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2024 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Ram Tapseya Gond S/O Late Deo Nath Gond R/O Village- Inguri- Saray,
P.S- Bankata, Distt.- Deoria (U.P).
2. Chameli Devi W/O Ram Tapseya Gond R/O Village- Inguri- Saray, P.S-
Bankata, Distt.- Deoria (U.P).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
4 07-03-2025
Heard Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c),
23, 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.07.2024 at
about 09:15 O’clock, police received a secret information that
three male and one female having charas are standing near N.H.
27 and they are going somewhere to sell it. At about 09:40
O’clock, the police party arrived at spot and saw that three male
persons and one female were standing there and out of them,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 88013 of 2024(4) dt.07-03-2025
2/5
one had some articles in a bag. Having seen the police, they
begin to flee away but three persons were caught by the police,
whereas, one person succeeded in fleeing away. On
interrogation, apprehended persons disclosed their name as
Harishankar Yadav (co-accused), Ram Tapseya Gond (Petitioner
No. 1) and Chameli Devi (Petitioner No. 2). Harishankar Yadav
disclosed that he is carrying charas in the bag and the four
persons were standing there for sale and were waiting for some
vehicle. They also disclosed the name of the fled away person as
Parmeshwar Yadav.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Lokesh Kumar
Singh has stated that in this case, recovery has been made from
one Harishankar Yadav, which is clear from the search and
seizure memo. Altogether, 4.582 kg of charas was recovered
from the possession of Harishankar Yadav. He has told that
these petitioners along with him was gathered there for the
distribution of the said contraband. It is also submitted that the
police has filed charge-sheet without FSL report. There is no
material to indicate that the material recovered was really
charas or not. No FSL report has been obtained during
investigation. The charge-sheet has been submitted against the
petitioners and others on 30.09.2024 under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 88013 of 2024(4) dt.07-03-2025
3/5
(c), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The witnesses of search list
of seizure are not the independent witnesses. From perusal of
the case diary, it transpires that without the FSL report, charge-
sheet was filed. Petitioners are having no criminal antecedent. It
is further submitted that the petitioners are languishing in
judicial custody since 03.07.2024.
5. The prayer of the petitioners are two fold: First is that
the recovery was made from the possession of co-accused and
his name has surfaced in the statement of the co-accused
namely, Harishankar Yadav. Second is that the charge-sheet was
filed without FSL report. In answer to first question, it is
pertinent to note here that the FIR and seizure list goes to show
that the seizure was made from the possession of one
Harishankar Yadav and he has stated that these petitioners are
associates. So, there is no recovery from the possession of these
petitioners. This much is clear. Regarding second question, as
far as the question of filing of charge-sheet without FSL report
is concerned, this issue has been discussed by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 65898 of 2023, wherein the co-
ordinate Bench has opined that from reading of Section 36(a)
sub-clause 4 of the NDPS Act, it appears that in the case of
offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 88013 of 2024(4) dt.07-03-2025
4/5
27(a) or for offences involving commercial quantity, the charge-
sheet can be submitted within 180 days and if the charge-sheet
is not submitted within 180 days, the accused is entitled for
default bail. The proviso to Section 37(a) speaks that public
prosecutor may take an extension of time for filing the charge-
sheet and 180 days time can be extended for a period up to one
year. After the public prosecutor files that progress report of the
investigation and gives specific reasons for detention of the
accused beyond the said period of 180 days. In present case, the
Special Public Prosecutor has not filed any application for
extension of the period of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet
as per the contention of the petitioners have been filed without
FSL report.
6. In the case of Rabi Prakash vs. the State of Odisha,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the prolonged
incarceration generally militate against the most precious
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and in such situation, the conditional
liberty must override the statutory embargo created under
Section 37 sub Clause 1(b) of the NDPS Act. The charge-sheet
filed without FSL report does not ipso facto creates any
embargo against the fundamental right of a citizen enshrined in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 88013 of 2024(4) dt.07-03-2025
5/5
Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
7. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the
prayer of regular bail.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
custody of the petitioners, this court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioners on bail. The above named petitioners are directed to
be released on bail in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.
289 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gopalganj.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T