Patna High Court
Raj Kumar Thakur @ Rajkumar ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the recovery of a commercial quantity of ganja and the lack of evidence of innocence preclude the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Raj Kumar Thakur, arrested on 11‑12‑2025, is charged under IPC sections 279 and 427 and NDPS Act sections 20 and 22 for alleged possession of 240 kg of ganja recovered from a vehicle he owned. The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated, asserting that he was not apprehended at the scene and that the vehicle had been reported stolen. The prosecution argues that the large quantity constitutes a commercial amount, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act to deny bail, and contends that the petitioner filed a false theft complaint and has been absconding since 2010. The court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. Finding no material to show the petitioner’s lack of knowledge or that he would not reoffend, 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 narcotic is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of innocence and lack of knowledge is sufficient to merit bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of committing a similar offence if released.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 279, 427
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 22, 37
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- IPC 279
- IPC 427
- narcotics
- presumption of innocence
- special judge
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22787 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2010 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Raj Kumar Thakur @ Rajkumar Thakur S/o Late Ramashray Thakur @ Bidur
Thakur R/o vill- Present address- Gaura Ward No. 11, Tola Vishunpur, P.S.-
Tegra, District- Begusarai .Permanent address as per FIR- R/O- village-Pipra,
P.O- Dumri, P.S- Begusarai Town, Dist-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned APP
for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
11.12.2025 in connection with Majhauliya Case No. 280 of
2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 427 of
the IPC and Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 240 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22787 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
alleged in the FIR. In fact, the petitioner was not apprehended
from the place of occurrence and he has been made accused
merely on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle in
question.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that it appears from the FIR as well as seizure list
that altogether 240 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the
vehicle in question and petitioner has filed a complaint before
the police with regard to the said vehicle that his vehicle was
looted on 02.10.2010 but the police disbelieve him and
submitted final form which suggest that the petitioner has filed
a false case of theft of his vehicle. He further submits that the
recovered contraband is more than the commercial quantity, so
there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He
further submits that the petitioner was absconding since 2010
and in 2025 he moved before the learned Court below for grant
of anticipatory bail but the same was refused and thereafter the
petitioner has moved before this Court for the grant of
anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 75129 of 2025 and the same
was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2025.
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22787 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
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 petitioners 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
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 circumstances
of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Majhauliya Case No. 280 of 2010 pending in
the Court of learned Exclusive Special Judge NDPS, Bettiah,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22787 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
West Champaran.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…