Patna High Court
Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as there is no embargo under Section 37 and the petitioner is not materially implicated.
Summary
Suraj Kumar was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 8(c) and 21(B) of the NDPS Act for possession of 6.25 grams of smack, which is more than a small quantity but less than a commercial quantity. The co‑accused Javed Alam and Kundan Kumar were apprehended and their possessions recovered, but no material other than their statements linked the petitioner to the offence. The petitioner, who has a clean antecedent, applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with and that there is no embargo under Section 37. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The Court, noting the lack of incriminating evidence against the petitioner and the quantity being below commercial level, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and other safeguards.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when the seized contraband is less than commercial quantity and the petitioner has a clean antecedent.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with in the investigation.
- Whether the embargo provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — s. 438(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(B), 37, 42, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- quantity of contraband
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- embargo provision
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22513 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-732 Year-2025 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Suraj Kumar Son of Munna Prasad Resident of Nisarpura Lakh, Police
Station - Naubatpur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ramesh Chandra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 732 of 2025, F.I.R.
dated 05.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
8(c) and 21(B) of the NDPS Act.
3. Recovery is of 6.25 grams of Smack.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence and the co-
accused, namely, Javed Alam and Kundan Kumar were
apprehended by the police and from the possession of Javed
Alam Rs. 800/- and 6.25 gram of Smack were recovered and
from the possession of Kundan Kumar Rs. 400/- was recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22513 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
He further submits that except the disclosure made by the
apprehended co-accused persons, no other material has come
during investigation which suggest the involvement of the
petitioner in the present occurrence. 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 it appears that the recovered
contraband is less than the commercial quantity. Hence, there is
no embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. 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, except the disclosure no
other material has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and the
recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity but
more than the small quantity , let the petitioner, above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within
a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22513 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
(NDPS), Patna in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 732
of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other
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…