CR. MISC./58703/2026 of Chaniya Devi Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

19-08-2026 Heard Mr. Anshuman, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Shahpur (Patna) P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) & 21(B) of the NDPS Act.

3. In course of vehicle checking, the police intercepted two accused persons and in course of search, total 46gm of smack like substance was recovered from the possession of both the persons. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner has been incorporated in this case, only by virtue of she being owner of the motorcycle, in question.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on the date of occurrence, the motorcycle, in question, was taken away by one of the villager and the petitioner was not Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58703 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026

knowing that her motorcycle had ever been used for any illicit purpose. Moreover, there is no iota of incriminating circumstances, which suggest the complicity of the petitioner in crime and the other accused persons, who have been apprehended, considering the nature of quantity of the substance, they have been extended the privilege of regular bail by a Bench of this Court. It is further contended that the allegation even if taken at its face value, it is admitted position that no recovery has been made from the conscious and constructive possession of the petitioner. It is more surprising that besides there is no compliance of statutory prescriptions as provided under the NDPS Act, especially Section 50 thereof. the Investigation Officer taking note of the weight of the recovered narcotics substance issued notice under Section 41 (i)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, but after the arrest of the co-accused persons. The entire action of the prosecution appears to be mala fide, is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner is a lady, having fair antecedent and undertakes that she will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the court.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the use of the vehicle of the petitioner in the crime clearly suggest Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58703 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026

her complicity.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that nothing has been recovered from the whereabouts of the petitioner, besides it is not the case of the prosecution regarding involvement of the petitioner in crime as well as defiance of other statutory prescriptions and the petitioner is a lady having fair antecedent, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge/ Excl.Court No. 2, NDPS Act, Patna Sadar, Patna in connection with Shahpur (Patna) P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

sumit/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T