Patna High Court
Ramchandra Mehta @ RamsversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as there were no fresh grounds and the commercial quantity of narcotics justified denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramchandra Mehta, sought regular bail in an NDPS case involving alleged possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics under Sections 22(c), 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A similar bail petition had been rejected earlier by the same court on the basis of the commercial quantity, and the petitioner offered no new ground other than the passage of time. He had been in custody for over a year with only one prosecution witness examined, and argued that the trial could not conclude soon. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence. The court, finding no fresh material and considering the commercial nature of the contraband, refused bail but directed the trial court to expedite the trial within seven months, after which the petitioner may renew his bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted in an NDPS case involving a commercial quantity of narcotics when no fresh ground is presented.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention and delay in trial constitute sufficient grounds for bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 22(c), 29
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- commercial quantity
- pre‑trial detention
- expedited trial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15852 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2024 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Ramchandra Mehta @ Rams, S/o Devenarayan Mehta @ Devnarayan Mahto,
Resdent of Village- Sripurjabti, Ward no. 4, P.S- Bhantabari, District- Sunsari,
Nepal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Lal, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NDPS
Case No. 96 of 2024 arising out of Birpur P.S. Case No.345 of
2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
22(c), 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
3. The present petition has been preferred by the
petitioner for regular bail. However, it transpires that similar
petition of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34721 of 2025 on
merit in view of commercial quantity of the recovered
contraband. There is no fresh ground except the passage of time.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15852 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been in custody since 17.10.2024 i.e. for about
one year five months and only one prosecution witness has been
examined during trial and there is no possibility of conclusion of
trial in near future.
5. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
stands rejected.
8. However, the petitioner is in custody since
17.10.2024, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude it preferably within seven months, failing which
the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
Checking your session…