Patna High Court
Rajnish Kumar @ GudduversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail may be granted when the seized narcotic quantity is below commercial quantity and the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply.
Summary
Petitioner Rajnish Kumar Guddu was arrested on 27‑08‑2025 in connection with a 2023 case under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 5.8 kg of ganja. The seized narcotics were recovered from the house of co‑accused Dharmendra Kumar, not from the petitioner, and the co‑accused had earlier been granted bail. The petitioner argued that the quantity was below the commercial threshold, that Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and therefore no embargo under Section 37 applied. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent. The court, noting the lesser quantity, the co‑accused’s bail, and the lack of statutory embargo, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a Rs 10,000 bond and specified conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act when the seized quantity is less than commercial quantity and no embargo under Section 37 exists.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with in the present case.
- Whether the bail granted to the co‑accused and the confession of the co‑accused affect the petitioner’s right to bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(ii)(B), 37, 42, 50
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- commercial quantity
- embargo
- Section 20
- Section 37
- Section 42
- Section 50
- criminal antecedent
- co‑accused
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1478 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2023 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Rajnish Kumar @ Guddu Son of Sri Valishtar Ray @ Barishtar Ray R/O
Village- Vishanpur Saidali, Maniarpur, P.S.- Raghopur, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
27.08.2025 in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 141 of
2023, F.I.R. dated 04.03.2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 20(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Recovery is of 5.800 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that it appears from the
F.I.R. as well as seizure list that 5.800 kg Ganja has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1478 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
recovered from the house of the co-accused, namely,
Dharmendra Kumar @ Langda and nothing has been recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has been
made accused merely on the ground that co-accused
Dharmendra Kumar @ Langda has confessed that he has
purchased the said contraband from the petitioner and other
accused persons and the said Dharmendra Kumar @ Langda has
been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2023
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61183 of 2023. He further submits that
there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections
42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and it appears that the recovered
contraband is less than the commercial quantity. Hence, there is
no embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act for grant of
bail to the petitioner. He further submits that the police after
investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner.
The petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R but fairly
submits that the recovery has been made from the possession of
co-accused person and the recovered contraband is less than the
commercial quantity. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1478 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but
fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the recovered contraband is less than the commercial
quantity and the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ADJ-XII,
Patna in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 141 of 2023,
subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court
and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1478 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…