Patna High Court
MD. SADDAMversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted because the seized quantity is below commercial quantity, the property is jointly owned, and the accused has a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Saddam, was arrested under Sections 8(c) and 21(B) of the NDPS Act after a police raid recovered 90 grams of heroin (smack) from his residence, which is a joint family property. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence, that the seized contraband was below commercial quantity, and that he has a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted that the joint ownership of the property raised doubts about exclusive possession and that the small quantity did not warrant continued detention. Considering these factors along with the petitioner’s clean record and prolonged custody since 23‑12‑2025, the court decided to grant bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions. The order directs the petitioner to appear in court regularly and imposes conditions for cancellation of bail if violated.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when only 90 grams of narcotic is seized from a jointly owned property.
- Whether the quantity of narcotic being below commercial quantity and the accused’s clean antecedent justify bail.
- Whether the joint ownership of the property raises a presumption of foul play sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(B), 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- Bail
- Narcotic drugs
- Joint property
- Commercial quantity
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11258 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2025 Thana- R S P.S. District- Araria
======================================================
MD. SADDAM S/O MD. NABI HASAN R/O VILL- MURBALLA, WARD
NO 03, PS- R.S., DISTT- ARARIA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with R.S.
P.S. Case No.231 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 8(c)/21(B) of the NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution case in, brief is that on 22.12.2025 at
about 19:35 hrs., a patrolling team raided the house of Md.
Saddam. During the raid, a person tried to escape, but the
patrolling team apprehended him. Upon inquiry, the
apprehended person disclosed his name as Md. Saddam. As no
independent witnesses were found, two members of the team
namely Pritam Kumar and Prince Kumar were made
independent witnesses. During the search of Md. Saddam's
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11258 of 2026(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
house, a substance resembling smack was recovered. Upon
inquiry, the apprehended person stated that the substance was
smack. Upon weighing the smack recovered from the spot was
found to be 90 grams. After preparing a seizure list and an arrest
memo, Md. Saddam was arrested. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. Further submits that recovery has been made from a joint
property, which does not exclusively belong to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only 90
gms. smacks has been recovered, which much below the
commercial quantity and also that petitioner has remained in
custody since 23.12.2025, having clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the
prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Taking into account the facts that the recovery has
been made from a joint property, which does not exclusively
belong to the petitioner and therefore, foul play cannot be ruled
out and further taking into account that only 90 gms. smacks has
been recovered, which much below the commercial quantity and
also that petitioner has remained in custody since 23.12.2025,
having clean antecedent, this Court inclind to grant bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11258 of 2026(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner above named, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with R.S. P.S. Case
No.231 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates
without substantial reason or in violation of the terms of the
bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled
by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11258 of 2026(3) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…