Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar @ LangaraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Santosh Kumar was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act after a raid on his house recovered 7.6 kg of ganja. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his sister Guriya Devi had supplied the drug, while the petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and that he had been in custody since 13‑01‑2026. Earlier, an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was withdrawn, though his sister was granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that the quantity seized was not of commercial magnitude and that he was a first‑time offender. The court examined the seriousness of the offence, the quantity involved (more than a small amount but less than commercial) and the statutory maximum punishment of ten years. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant release, the court refused bail, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after charge‑framing. The bail petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a person accused under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act when 7.6 kg of ganja has been seized
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the non‑commercial quantity of the drug justify bail
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)B, 8
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- drug possession
- quantity of narcotics
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21151 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-621 Year-2025 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
Santosh Kumar @ Langara Son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad R/o Village -
Dhangai, P.S. - Bikramganj, Dist. - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajani Kant Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 621 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections Sections 8 and 20(b) (ii)B of
the NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 13-1-2026 and the informant alleges that 255 grams Ganja
was recovered from the kiosk of Manoj, who was arrested, and
he disclosed that he had purchased ganja from the petitioner
and Guriya Devi, thereafter the house of the petitioner was
raided and 7.600 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21151 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
2/3
Guriya Devi, who is own sister of the petitioner, and the
petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail
by filing Cr. Misc No. 78839 of 2025 and the anticipatory bail
with respect to the petitioner was withdrawn by an order dated
6-1-2026 while Guriya Devi was granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State does not dispute the
said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner but then submits that from perusal of the order
dated 6-1-2026 in Cr. Misc No. 78839 of 2025, it would
manifest that a detailed order was recorded that as to why
anticipatory bail is being granted to Guriya Devi. It is next
submitted that it was from house of this petitioner that 7.600 kg
of ganja was recovered, on which the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submits that even presuming what has
been alleged is true without admitting then the recovery of ganja
is less than commercial quantity, but then more than small
quantity and the punishment prescribed is 10 years and the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21151 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
3/3
7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.