Patna High Court
Ritesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted as the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic creates a reasonable belief of guilt and a risk of reoffending, and the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not met.
Summary
The petitioner, Ritesh Kumar, was arrested on 24‑12‑2025 for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act after police recovered about 300 g of a substance described as “Brown Sugar” and cash from his residence and motorcycle. He pleaded that he has a clean record, the FIR is fabricated, and the investigation violated mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS, 2023. The State opposed bail, arguing that the quantity seized constitutes a commercial amount, which under Section 37 of the NDPS Act warrants denial of bail. The court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities and found no material indicating the petitioner’s lack of knowledge or that he would not reoffend if released. Consequently, the court refused the bail application, holding that the statutory criteria for bail were not satisfied.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when a commercial quantity of narcotic is seized under the NDPS Act.
- Whether alleged procedural lapses under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and Sections 103, 105 of the BNSS, 2023, affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a forged FIR and lack of knowledge of the contraband is sufficient to merit bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 37, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics
- procedural compliance
- fabricated FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20319 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2025 Thana- FULKAHA District- Araria
======================================================
Ritesh Kumar S/o- Kapildev Paswan R/v- Madhura Uttar, W.No-1, Ps-
Fulkaha Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
24.12.2025 in connection with Fulkaha P.S. Case No. 191 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c)/21(c) of
the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant
gave written application to the S.H.O. Fulkaha Police Station
alleging therein that on 23.12.2025 at about 20:45 hrs, he
received information that the petitioner was involved in the sale
and smuggling of narcotic substance from his house. Based on
this information, a team was constituted. The raiding team
reached the house of the petitioner. During the search of the
house of the petitioner, a substance resembling "Brown Sugar"
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20319 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/4
and Rs. 10,590/- were recovered. Upon inquiry about the
"Brown Sugar" the petitioner stated that he buys it from one
Nasim whose mobile number is 9798017741. The petitioner
further disclosed that some "Brown Sugar" was also kept in his
Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle. Thereafter the informant searched the
motorcycle a substance resembling "Brown Sugar" was
recovered. Upon weighing the "Brown Sugar" recovered from
the spot was found to be 300 gram, and accordingly the seizure
list was prepared.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the
allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.
It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears
that altogether 300 gms of Brown Sugar and Rs.10,590/- was
recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is next
submitted that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions
of Section 50 of NDPS Act and Sections 103 and 105 of BNSS,
2023.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20319 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/4
bail of the petitioner and submits that the recovered contraband
is more than commercial quantity.
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the
recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is
circumscribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant of
bail, the Court must have reason to believe that petitioners have
not committed the offence and in the event of release he would
not commit similar offence.
7. The issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Rajesh and
Ors. reported in (2020) 12 SCC, 122 as well as in the case of
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in
AIR 2022 SC 3444 and Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated
28.03.2023.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of contraband
recovered would not justify that the petitioner had no
knowledge of the narcotic nor there is any material to
substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence
in the event of release.
9. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20319 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
4/4
on bail in connection with Fulkaha P.S. Case No. 191 of 2025
pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special
Judge (NDPS Act), Araria.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…