Patna High Court
Chandrika KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the recovery of a commercial quantity of charas created a presumption of knowledge and risk, and the petitioner failed to meet the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Chandrika Kumari was arrested on 2 December 2025 in connection with NDPS case No. 169 of 2025 for alleged possession of 3.542 kg of charas, alleged under Sections 8 and 20(B)(ii)C of the NDPS Act, 1985. She applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent, that the FIR was fabricated, and that the prosecution had not complied with Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity seized exceeds the commercial threshold, invoking the embargo provision of Section 37. The Court examined the Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities and noted the lack of material to show the petitioner’s lack of knowledge or low risk of re‑offending. Consequently, the Court refused the bail application, holding that the statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where a commercial quantity of narcotic has been recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of knowledge of the contraband and clean antecedent satisfy the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the prosecution complied with procedural safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(B)(ii)C, 37, 42, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- charas
- Section 37
- narcotics
- embargo
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14958 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-527 Year-2025 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Chandrika Kumari W/o- Dvendra Thakur R/o village- Parsa P.S.-Malamba
Dist- Salah @ Sarlahi Nepal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhannjay Kumar II, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-03-2026 Heard Mr. Dhannjay Kumar II, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
02.12.2025 in connection with N.D.P.S G.R. Case No. 169 of
2025 arising out of Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 527 of 2025 for the
offences punishable under Sections 8 and 20(B) (ii)C of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 3.542 kg of Charas.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that 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 there is non-compliance of Section 42
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14958 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
and 50 of the NDPS Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that altogether 3.542 kg of Charas has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He
further submits 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 she 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14958 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
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. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in connection with N.D.P.S G.R. Case No. 169 of 2025
arising out of Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 527 of 2025 pending in the
Court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, East
Champaran.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…