Patna High Court
Ekram Mian @ Md. Ekram @ Ikram Miyan @ Md. IkramversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court was not convinced of the petitioner's innocence nor of his likelihood to refrain from reoffending.
Summary
Ekram Mian was arrested on 8 September 2025 in connection with a case involving the alleged recovery of 203.800 kg of ganja, charged under Sections 8(C), 20(B)ii C and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that the seized narcotics were not found in his possession, noting that a co‑accused had been granted bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity seized exceeds the commercial threshold, invoking the embargo provision of Section 37, and pointing to a prior similar case against the petitioner. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases and held that the large quantity and lack of evidence of non‑knowledge precluded any belief that the petitioner would not reoffend. Consequently, the Court refused bail, dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the alleged seized quantity constitutes a commercial quantity.
- Whether the petitioner can be shown to have no knowledge of the narcotics and is unlikely to commit a similar offence if released.
- Whether the existence of a prior similar case against the petitioner affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(B)ii C, 22, 37, 8(C)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- embargo
- narcotics
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11226 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2024 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Ekram Mian @ Md. Ekram @ Ikram Miyan @ Md. Ikram S/o Kamaruddin
Miya @ Manjur Miya R/o Village- Belhiya, Sigasani Tola (Binvaliya), PS-
Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
08.09.2025 in connection with Ramgharwa P.S. Case No. 322 of
2024, FIR dated 17.12.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(C), 20(B)ii C & 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of 203.800 Kgs. of
Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that from perusal of the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11226 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of
the petitioner and co-accused, namely, Munaf Miya @ Monaf
Miya has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 24.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4376 of
2026 and the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the
other hand, on the basis of material available on record and case
diary, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that altogether 203 Kgs. 800 grams of ganja was
recovered from the bus in question and the recovered
contraband is more than the commercial quantity, so there is
embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and apart from
aforesaid the petitioner carries one more case of similar nature
other than the present one.
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery
of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985,
Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must
have reason to believe that petitioner has not committed the
offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar
offence.
7. The issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11226 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Rajesh and
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 Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated
28.03.2023.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja recovered
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.
9. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in connection with Ramgharwa P.S. Case No. 322 of
2024, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, East Champaran at Motihari.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…