Patna High Court
Bhuteli YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the case was not deemed fit for such relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Bhuteli Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS No.858/2024) under Sections 8(c) and 21(a) of the NDPS Act where 3.4 kg of ganja was seized. He argued that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal record, no contraband was found in his possession, and the quantity seized was below commercial quantity, making Section 37 inapplicable and there was no compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed the bail. The Court held that the circumstances did not warrant anticipatory bail and therefore rejected the petition. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, a regular bail application may be considered on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the seized quantity qualifies as a commercial quantity invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(a), 37, 42, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 8(c)
- Section 21(a)
- Section 37
- Section 42
- Section 50
- false implication
- commercial quantity
- bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16755 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-858 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN District-
Gopalganj
======================================================
Bhuteli Yadav Son of Bhagrasan Sah R/O village - Bagha, P.S.- Yadopur,
District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Adesh Raj Singh , Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 858 of 2024 instituted for the
offences under Sections 8(c), 21(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that total 3.400
kilogram of ganja has been recovered in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of
tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. No
incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. The recovered contraband is below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16755 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
2/2
commercial quantity, and hence, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act
is not applicable in the present case. There is no compliance of
Section 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail,
and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the
learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and
prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own
merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…