Patna High Court
Shyam Sundar Kumar @ Shyam Kumar @ Nitish Kumar @ PauwaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for release.
Summary
The petitioner, Shyam Sundar Kumar, was arrested on 25 June 2022 in connection with FIR No. 646/2022 alleging offences under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and Sections 25(1‑b)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, with a recovery of 30 kg of ganja and two live cartridges from a car he was travelling in. He has filed multiple bail applications since 2023, all of which were rejected, and claims that he had no conscious possession of the narcotics and that the FIR is fabricated. The State contends that the large quantity of narcotics constitutes a commercial quantity, invoking the embargo provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and that there is no material to show the petitioner lacks knowledge or will not re‑offend. The Court noted that eight charge‑sheet witnesses have been examined and the trial is pending, but emphasized that the Supreme Court precedents require a belief that the accused is not guilty before bail can be granted in such cases. Relying on Sections 37 and 50 of the NDPS Act and the cited Supreme Court judgments, the Court found no sufficient ground to believe the petitioner was innocent or unlikely to commit a similar offence. Consequently, the bail petition was refused and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial. The order underscores the strict approach to bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case involving a commercial quantity of narcotics under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of lack of conscious possession and alleged fabrication of the FIR is sufficient to merit bail.
- Whether non‑compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the status of the trial affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)A, 26, 35
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 37, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics
- arms act
- trial expedite
- presumption of guilt
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11017 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-646 Year-2022 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Shyam Sundar Kumar @ Shyam Kumar @ Nitish Kumar @ Pauwa S/o-
Triveni Yadav R/V- Koriyapatti ward no 12 PS-Jadia Dist-Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 Heard Mr. Prafull Chandra Thakur, learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
25.06.2022 in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 646 of
2022, FIR dated 24.06.2022 registered for the offence under
Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and 25(1-b)A/26/35 of
Arms Act.
3. Recovery is of 30 kg of Ganja and 2 live cartridges.
4. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected thrice vide order dated 06.10.2023 in Cr. Misc. No.
19429 of 2023, vide order dated 05.07.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.
33645 of 2024, vide order dated 02.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.
37919 of 2025 and withdrawn once vide order dated 11.04.2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11017 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/4
in Cr. Misc. No. 22947 of 2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR that nothing has been
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the
recovery has been made from the car in question and there is
non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act and trial is not in
progress and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely,
Pintu Kumar, Vivek Kumar @ Vikash @ Vikash Kumar and
Amit Kumar have been granted the privilege of bail by this
Court vide order dated 20.06.2023, 02.08.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.
73197 of 2022, Cr. Misc.No. 60242 of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No.
36371 of 2024.
6. Vide order dated 25.02.2026 a report was called
with regard to stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial
Court dated 28.02.2026 reveals that there are eight charge sheet
witness and all of them have been examined and record is fixed
on 16.03.2026 for production of seized material for exhibit.
7. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on
the basis of the material available on the record, has vehemently
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11017 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
3/4
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
altogether 30 kilograms of Ganja has been recovered from the
car in question boarded by the accused persons including the
petitioner and it appears from the FIR that huge quantity of
Ganja was recovered so there is embargo under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner.
8. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery
of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must
have reason to believe that the petitioner has not committed the
offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar
offence.
9. The issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors Vs. Rajesh &
Ors, reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 as well as in the case of
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in
AIR 2022 SC 3444 and recently decided the judgment in the
case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
10. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from the
car in question boarded by the accused persons including the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11017 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
4/4
petitioner which would not justify that the petitioner had no
knowledge of the narcotic nor there is any material to
substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence
in the event of release.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of
allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No.
646 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, Araria.
12. Prayer is refused.
13. However the learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…