Patna High Court
Sanjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court refused bail, holding that the recovery of a commercial quantity of ganja created a presumption of guilt and no sufficient reason existed to believe the petitioner would not reoffend.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, was arrested on 1 September 2025 after police recovered 65 kg of ganja, an electric weighing machine, a manual weighing machine, and a mobile phone from his residence. He applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent and false implication, while the State opposed bail citing the large quantity of narcotics recovered, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court examined the statutory requirement that bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities be granted only if there is reason to believe the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the recovery of such a large quantity created a presumption of involvement and no material indicated the petitioner would not commit a similar offence if released. Consequently, the court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotics (65 kg) has been recovered from the accused's possession.
- Whether there is sufficient reason to believe that the petitioner is not guilty and would not commit a similar offence if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- presumption of guilt
- narcotics
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22246 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2025 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar S/o Chanarik Rai R/o Village- Mohanpur, P.S- Raghopur, Dist-
Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 Heard Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Murli Dhar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
01.09.2025 in Spl. N.D.P.S Case No. 277 of 2025 arising out of
Nadi P.S. Case No. 243 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 31.08.2025 for the
offences punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C) of the
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 65 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that
altogether in presence of Magistrate 65 kg of Ganja, an electric
weighing machine, an ordinary weighing machine with weights
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22246 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
and a mobile phone were recovered and the petitioner was
apprehended at the place of occurrence.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on the
basis of the material available on the record, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
altogether 65 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the house of
the petitioner and it appears from the FIR that huge quantity of
Ganja was recovered so there is embargo under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner.
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
Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant
of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that the petitioner
has 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 & 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 recently decided the
judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22246 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
@ Pappu, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from
possession of the petitioner 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. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of
allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No. 243 of
2025, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge
(NDPS Act) Court No.1, Patna.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…