Patna High Court
Md. FarukhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail cannot be granted as the recovery exceeds commercial quantity and there is insufficient material to show the petitioners' innocence or that they would not reoffend.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Farukh and Md. Shahrukh, were arrested on 11-12-2025 in connection with a case involving the alleged possession of 29 kg of ganja, which exceeds the commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. They sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent, false implication, and non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the large quantity recovered and the embargo provision under Section 37. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. Finding that the recovery of a commercial quantity did not establish the petitioners' innocence nor assure they would not reoffend, the Court refused the bail application. Consequently, the petitioners remain in custody.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where a commercial quantity of narcotic has been recovered.
- Whether the petitioners have demonstrated that they are not guilty and would not commit a similar offence if released.
- Whether non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(B)(ii) C/25/29, 37, 42, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- embargo
- narcotics
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22415 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-501 Year-2025 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Md. Farukh Md. Maniuddin @ Md. Mustakim Resident of Village - Siswar,
P.S.- Phulparas, District - Madhubani.
2. Md. Shahrukh Son of Md. Mainuddin @ Md. Mustakim Resident of Village
- Siswar, P.S.- Phulparas, District - Madhubani.
... ... petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the petitioners/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No.-II, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioners seeks bail who are in custody since
11.12.2025 in connection with Phulparas Case No. 501 of 2025
for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(B) (ii) C/25/29
of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 29 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is
non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22415 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners
and submits that it appears from the FIR as well as seizure list
that altogether 29 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the
house of the petitioners and the recovered contraband is more
than the commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
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 petitionerss 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 Ganja recovered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22415 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
would not justify that the petitioners had no knowledge of the
narcotic nor there is any material to substantiate that the
petitioners would not commit such offence in the event of
release.
9. Considering the fact that the recovered contraband
is more than the commercial quantity, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Phulparas P.S.
Case No. 501 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Madhubani.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…