Patna High Court
Birendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that no embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies and bail may be granted.
Summary
Petitioners Birendra Kumar and Sanni Kumar were arrested in connection with an NDNDPS case where 2.030 kg of ganja was seized from a motorcycle, but not from their direct possession. They pleaded clean antecedents and argued that the FIR was fabricated, the mandatory provisions of Sections 45 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and the seized quantity fell within the intermediate, not commercial, range. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. The High Court examined the facts, noted the lack of an embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to the intermediate quantity and procedural lapses, and consequently granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several conditions. The order also directed the lower court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents and to cancel bail if they tampered with evidence or concealed prior offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of 2.030 kg of ganja, classified as intermediate quantity, triggers an embargo on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether non‑compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 45 and 50 of the NDPS Act affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedents and alleged lack of direct possession justify bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(B), 37, 45, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- intermediate quantity
- Section 37 embargo
- mandatory provisions
- criminal antecedent
- narcotics seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16594 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2025 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Birendra Kumar S/o Laxman Ray R/o vill - Mohanpur, P.S.- Raghopur,
Distt.- Vaishali
2. Sanni Kumar @ Sunny Kumar S/o Akhilesh Ray @ Aklesh Ray R/o vill -
Mohanpur, P.S.- Raghopur, Distt.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Harendra Prasad, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since
08.11.2025, in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No. 311 of 2025,
F.I.R. dated 07.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The case relates to recovery of 2.030 Kgs. of
GIanja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have been falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16594 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
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.
It appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that altogether
2.030 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the motorcycle in
question which suggests that nothing has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioners. He further submits
that there is non compliance of mandatory provision of Sections
45 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the recovered contraband falls
under the intermediate quantity, so there is no embargo under
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act to enlarge the petitioners on bail
and the recovered contraband is much less than the commercial
quantity. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioners
are in custody since 08.11.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioners having clean antecedents and
there is non compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 45
and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the recovered contraband is less
than the commercial quantity, so there is no embargo under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16594 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, let the petitioners, above named,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Patna in connection with Nadi
P.S. Case No. 311 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without
sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the
Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16594 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
verification.
(3) 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 antecedents, the court below shall take step for
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)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…