Patna High Court
Navin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
Bail is denied where a commercial quantity of narcotics is alleged to be in the accused's possession under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Navin Kumar, was arrested after police recovered 700 grams of heroin from a vehicle involved in a road accident. He applied for bail, arguing that the seizure was made from another individual, Raj Tilak, and that there was no direct link to him. The State opposed the bail, citing the commercial quantity of the narcotics and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which bars bail for such quantities. The court examined the allegations and the statutory provisions governing bail in NDPS cases. Concluding that the quantity recovered was commercial and the petitioner was implicated, the court denied bail, allowing a re‑application after six months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotics is alleged to be in his possession.
- Whether the presence of another individual (Raj Tilak) affects the bail eligibility of the petitioner.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- drug trafficking
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16674 of 2026
Arising out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- Pothia District- Katihar
======================================================
Navin Kumar S/o Sharwan Singh R/o - Mathurapur Ward No. 03, P.S -
Khagaria, District – Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.. ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Pothiya P.S. Case No.
123 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 111, 318(4), 319(2) of BNS & 21(c), 22(c) and 29 of
the NDPS Act.
3. The allegation is that the FIR was lodged with the
allegation that there was an accident between two vehicles. The
drivers were taken to hospital and their families were informed.
Two persons namely Raj Tilak and the petitioner came to the
police station where the vehicle was kept and they produced
their identity card. They started dragging something from the
sound system of the vehicle. The police after seeing the same
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16674 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026
2/3
arrested them and recovered 700 Gms of heroin from their
possession.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
seizure list would show that the recovery has been made from
Raj Tilak and not the petitioner. There is nothing at all to
distinguish the case of Raj Tilak and Naveen Kumar (Petitioner)
though the allegation seems to be a bit preposterous.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the commercial quantity of contraband
recovered from the possession of the petitioner which is barred
under section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
8. The petitioner may renew his prayer for
bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
9. It is made clear that any observation made
herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for
the purpose of adjudication of the present bail
application. Such observations shall not be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16674 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026
3/3
influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.