Patna High Court
MD. RAIS UDDIN @ MD. RAYAISUDDINversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the seized quantity was below commercial quantity and no embargo under Section 37 applied, subject to standard bail conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Rais Uddin, sought bail for an offence under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act, alleging that the FIR was fabricated and that the seized 44 grams of smack was recovered from a co‑accused’s house, not from his conscious possession. He contended that the quantity was below the commercial threshold, so Section 37’s embargo on bail did not apply. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner was present at the place of recovery and had another pending case. The court examined whether the low quantity and lack of direct possession justified bail despite the petitioner’s presence at the scene. It concluded that bail could be granted, imposing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several conditions, including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner was released on bail subject to those conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the accused was present at the place of recovery of narcotics under the NDPS Act.
- Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes an embargo on bail when the seized quantity is less than commercial quantity.
- Whether the presence of another pending case affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the alleged false implication and lack of direct possession justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug possession
- commercial quantity
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18603 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- R S P.S. District- Araria
======================================================
Md. Rais Uddin @ Md. Rayaisuddin S/O Jakiri Uddin R/O Vill.- Hariyabara,
Ward No. 6, P.S.- R.S., Dist.- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 Heard Mr.Vijay Kishore Bharti, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
25.01.2026 in connection with R.S.P.S. P.S. Case No. 15 of
2026, F.I.R. dated 24.01.2026 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c)/21(b) of N.D.P.S.Act.
3. Recovery is of 44 Gms of Smack.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. He further submits that it appears from the
FIR as well as seizure list that no incriminating article has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18603 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the
recovery has been made from the house of co-accused person,
namely, Md. Ammar Alam @ Amar and the petitioner has been
made accused in the present case merely on the ground that the
petitioner was present in the house of co-accused person and
altogether 44 Gms of Smack with paper has been recovered
from the house of co-accused person. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the recovered contraband is less than the
commercial quantity. Hence, there is no embargo under Section
37 of the N.D.P.S.Act for grant of bail to the petitioner and the
police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that at the time of recovery the petitioner was present at
the place of occurrence and the petitioner carries one more case
other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is
on bail in the said case, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail
petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18603 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, NDPS Act, Araria in connection with R.S.P.S. P.S. Case
No. 15 of 2026, with the following conditions:-
(I) Petitioner 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(III) 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 antecedent, 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)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…