Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Anshu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court held that the presence of contraband exceeding commercial quantity invokes the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and therefore bail cannot be granted.

Summary

Anshu Kumar was arrested after police seized a Bolero vehicle containing 400 grams of smack, cash and other items, and he was charged under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 22 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed innocence, no prior criminal record, and argued that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and that Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The State opposed bail, contending that the quantity seized exceeded the commercial limit, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The High Court examined the facts, noted the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity, and applied the statutory bar on bail. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the trial without undue delay.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to the accused under the NDPS Act when the seized contraband exceeds the commercial quantity.
  • Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • commercial quantity
  • Section 37
  • drug trafficking
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1911 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-423 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Anshu Kumar Son of Shambhu Kumar Yadav Village- Basantpur, Ward No
                 16, PS -Shankarpur, District-Madhepura


                                                                                                    .
                                                                                  .. ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus


                 The State of Bihar


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   21-01-2026              Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                            2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Murliganj

                   PS Case No. 423 of 2025 instituted for the offences under

                   Sections 8(c), 21(b) & 22 of the NDPS Act.

                            3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that on 24.08.2025,

                   police intercepted a Bolero near Mirganj Chowk and recovered

                   400 grams smack, Rs. 9,400/- cash, Bolero vehicle and mobile

                   phones from co-accused persons, including the petitioner.

                            4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1911 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

          present case. The petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2025 and

          has got no criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has              been

          submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of

          witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further

          submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

          possession of the petitioner. In fact, petitioner has no concern

          with the recovered contraband. It is lastly submitted that there is

          no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed

          the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned A.P.P.

          submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial

          quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.

          Act.

                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

          the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial

          quantity      coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the

          N.D.P.S. Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the

          petitioner.

                  7. The prayer is rejected.

                  8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as

          expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1911 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     unnecessary adjournments.


                                                                  (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

Raj Kishore/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.