logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 460 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@ SLP [Crl.] No. 2402 of 2026]
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
Parties : Bikram Patra Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondent: ------
Date of Judgment : 25-03-2026
Head Note :-
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b) -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Appeal

3. Summary:
The appellant was charged under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act for allegedly receiving Rs.2,000 to load ganja into a co‑accused’s vehicle. The appellant contended that no recovery was made against him and that the case relied solely on the co‑accused’s statement. The court considered the appellant’s period of incarceration, lack of prior criminal record, and the counsel’s submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant with conditions satisfactory to the trial court. The appeal was consequently allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has been arrayed as an accused in connection with FIR No.585/2024, dated 13.09.2024, registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that no recovery was effected from the appellant and that he has been implicated on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused. The case against the appellant is that he allegedly received a sum of Rs.2000/- for loading the ganja into the car of the co-accused.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant coupled with the fact that there are no prior criminal antecedents in which the appellant is stated to be involved, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

7. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal