Patna High Court
Mohammad Abdul Bari @ Md. Abdul BariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the contraband exceeds the commercial quantity, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Petitioner Mohammad Abdul Bari sought anticipatory bail in a case under the NDPS Act where 213 grams of cannabis were allegedly recovered, invoking Sections 8(c), 21(b), 25 and 29. He contended that he had no criminal antecedent, no article was found in his possession, and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which bars bail for offenses involving commercial quantities, was inapplicable. The State opposed bail, arguing that the quantity seized exceeded the commercial threshold, thereby invoking the statutory bar under Section 37. The Court examined the facts, noted the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity, and held that the statutory bar applied. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when the seized contraband exceeds the commercial quantity prescribed under Section 37.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(b), 25, 29, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- anticipatory bail
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- bail denial
- drug offenses
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6681 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia
======================================================
Mohammad Abdul Bari @ Md. Abdul Bari son of Md. Nezamuddin Resident
of Village - Mahsailli, Ward no. 1, Ps- Bausi, (Raniganj), Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 129 of 2025, instituted for the
offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is
recovery of 213 grams smack in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against
the petitioner. No incriminating article has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6681 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/2
further submits Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable
in the present case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned
A.P.P. submits that recovered contraband is above the
commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial
quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory
bail is rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…