Patna High Court
Nunu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied because the seized contraband exceeded the commercial quantity, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Nunu Devi was arrested in connection with an NDPS case alleging that 106 kg of ganja-like substance was recovered from the courtyard of her joint family house. She pleaded innocence, asserted no prior criminal record, and argued that the recovery was made from a shared residence without compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, contending that the quantity seized exceeds the commercial threshold, invoking the bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The High Court examined the facts, noted the commercial quantity and the statutory embargo, and concluded that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial without undue delays.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the seized narcotic quantity exceeds the commercial limit under the NDPS Act.
- Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail in such circumstances.
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act affects the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 37, 42, 50, 8
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- drug trafficking
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11041 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul
======================================================
Nunu Devi Wife of Ramu Sharma Resident of Village- Purani Bhaptiyahi,
Ward No. 7, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NDPS
Case No. 95 of 2025, arising out of Bhaptiyahi PS Case No. 194
of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c)
of the NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery
of total 106 Kg ganja like substance from the courtyard of the
petitioner’s house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2025 and
has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11041 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submits that petitioner has no concern with the
recovered ganja. It is submitted that recovery is made from the
joint house of the petitioner, where other family members also
reside. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the
NDPS Act.
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 is rejected.
8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.