Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic and the lack of evidence that the petitioner would not re‑offend precluded the grant of bail.
Summary
Manoj Kumar was arrested on 2 December 2025 in connection with a case alleging possession of 13,500 capsules of Trohma‑50 mg, offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent, false FIR and non‑compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50. The State opposed bail, asserting that the quantity recovered exceeds the commercial threshold, that Sections 42 and 50 were complied with, and that an embargo under Section 37 applies. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents that bail in such cases is only granted when the court is convinced the accused is not guilty and will not re‑offend. Finding no such reason and noting the commercial quantity, the Court refused bail. The petition for bail was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where a commercial quantity of narcotic has been recovered.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner’s claim of a false FIR justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 37, 42, 50
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- Section 42
- Section 50
- narcotic drugs
- presumption of guilt
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11495 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2025 Thana- SIKTA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Ram Son of Chandradev Ram Resident of Village -
Haripur, Dharmpur, Ps- Sikta, Dist- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Satyam Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned APP for
the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
02.12.2025 in connection with Sikta P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025
for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 13,500 of TROHMA-50 mg
capsules.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11495 of 2026(4) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that there
is non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 42 and 50
of the NDPS Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis
of material available on record as well as case diary has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that it appears from the FIR that altogether 13,500
capsules of TROHMA-50 mg has been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner. He further submits that there is
compliance of mandatory provision of Sections 42 and 50 of the
NDPS. Apart from that the F.S.L. report also confirms that the
recovered contraband is more than the commercial quantity, so
there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
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 petitioners have 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
Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Rajesh and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11495 of 2026(4) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
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 contraband
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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I
am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Sikta P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS, Bettiah, West
Champaran.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.