Patna High Court
Ratnesh Kumar @ MullaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic indicated a likelihood of guilt and a risk of reoffending, and there was no material to show the petitioner’s innocence.
Summary
Petitioner Ratnesh Kumar was arrested on 15 January 2026 in connection with a case involving alleged possession of stolen ornaments and 275.72 grams of the narcotic 'Kota' (smack). The police recovered gold jewellery and the narcotic from him, leading to charges under Sections 317(5) and 3(5) of the BNS Act and Sections 20, 22 and 8(C) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and that the FIR was fabricated, seeking bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity seized constituted a commercial amount and citing prior denial of bail to a co‑accused. The court examined the standards for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, referring to Supreme Court precedents, and concluded that the recovery of a commercial quantity did not permit a presumption of innocence or guarantee that the petitioner would not reoffend. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotic is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of knowledge of the narcotic is sufficient to merit bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 317(5), 3(5)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 22, 37, 8(C)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- narcotics
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14765 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2025 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Ratnesh Kumar @ Mulla Son of Late Devendra Paswan Resident of Village -
Badi Yusufpur, Police Station - Industrial Area, Dist. - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sweety Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
15.01.2026 in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 174
of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 317(5) and
3(5) of BNS and Sections 20,22 and 8(C) of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.11.2025
informant along with police team proceeded for patrolling and
reached near Chaurasiya Chowk where he received information
that in village Badi Yusufpur near Dalan of Suryadev
Choudhary, 3-4 persons were sitting in suspicious condition and
they were planning to sale the stolen ornaments and Narcotic
substance. It is further stated that when the police team reached
on the said place, on seeing the police vehicle 2-3 persons fled
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14765 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/4
way but one person was apprehended with the help of police
force. It is further stated that on interrogation the apprehended
person disclosed his name as Ratnesh Kumar (Mulla).
Thereafter on search, one golden bracelet, golden chain, golden
locket, golden rings of finger, golden nose pin, mobile of Apple
and 275.72 grams Narcotic substance 'Kota' (smack) were
recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is
forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any
offence as alleged in the FIR.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that altogether 275.72 grams
of kota smack was recovered from the possession of the
petitioner and co-accused persons and recovered contraband is
more than commercial quantity and apart from that regular bail
of co-accused person, namely, Kanhaiya Kumar has been
rejected vide order dated 17.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
16783 of 2026 by this Court.
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14765 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
3/4
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
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 facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025
pending in the court of learned Sessions-cum-Special Judge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14765 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
4/4
NDPS Act (present Sessions Judge), Vaishali at Hajipur.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…