Patna High Court
Rahul Ray @ Rahul Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted as the quantity was below the commercial threshold and statutory non‑compliance removed the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner Rahul Ray was arrested on 03‑12‑2025 in connection with a case arising from an FIR dated 02‑12‑2025 alleging possession of 10.5 grams of a smack‑like substance, offences under Sections 8(C) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, asserting a clean criminal record, that the FIR was fabricated, and that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and Sections 103/105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (Suppression) Act, 2023. The prosecution opposed the bail application. The court observed that the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, the petitioner had no prior convictions, and there was a lapse in statutory compliance, thereby finding no ground for invoking the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, regular appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents, and directed that bail not be delayed for verification purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Sections 8(C) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act when the quantity seized is less than the commercial quantity.
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and Sections 103/105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (Suppression) Act, 2023 bars the grant of bail.
- Whether the claim of a false FIR and the petitioner’s clean antecedent affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 37, 42, 50, 8(C)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug possession
- quantity
- non‑compliance
- false FIR
- court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20916 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2025 Thana- BANMANKHI District- Purnia
======================================================
Rahul Ray @ Rahul Kumar Ray S/o Late Ram Sevak Ray R/o Village -
Maeveshi Hat, Ward no. 13, Banmankhi, P.S. - Banmankhi, Dist. - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
03.12.2025 in connection with Special Case No. 18 of 2026
arising out of Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 359 of 2025, F.I.R.
dated 02.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
8(C) and 21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. According to prosecution case, 10.5 grams of
smack like substance including the packet was recovered from
the possession of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20916 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
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 altogether 10.5
grams of smack like substance has been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner including the paper. He further
submits that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision
of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 103/105
of the BNSS, 2023 and it appears that the recovered contraband
is more than the small quantity but 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. The petitioner is
in custody since 03.12.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent, the recovered
contraband is less than the commercial quantity and there is
non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as well as
Section 103/105 of the BNSS, 2023, 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
each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20916 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
Purnea in connection with Special Case No. 18 of 2026 arising
out of Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 359 of 2025, subject to 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his 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)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…