Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithlesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to bond and conditions.

Summary

Mithilesh Kumar was arrested on 13 January 2026 for alleged possession of 6 kg of ganja, while a co‑accused was found with 4 kg. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent, argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and that the total quantity was below the commercial threshold, negating the embargo under Section 37. He also pointed out that the co‑accused had been granted bail in a similar case. The State opposed bail. Considering the clean record, non‑compliance of Section 50, the sub‑commercial quantity, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act given the quantity of narcotics seized and the statutory provisions.
  • Whether the non‑compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the fact that the seized quantity is below commercial quantity justify bail.
  • Whether the bail granted to a similarly situated co‑accused influences the decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • possession of cannabis
  • commercial quantity
  • Section 50
  • Section 37
  • criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22803 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithlesh Kumar Son of Devendra Saw Resident of
                 Budda, P.S.- Athmalgola, District- Patna

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-04-2026                     Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam , learned APP for

                   the State.

                                  2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   13.01.2026, in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 20 of

                   2026, F.I.R. dated 12.01.2026 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 8/20(B)II(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.

                                 3. Allegation against the petitioner is that 06 Kgs. of

                   Ganja has been recovered from a back pack carried by the

                   petitioner and 04 Kgs. Of Ganja from a jhola carried by co-

                   accused Ajit Kumar, total 10 Kgs.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely

                   implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R. as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22803 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
                                            2/4




          seizure list that altogether 10 Kgs. of ganja was recovered, 06

          Kgs. of ganja was recovered from the possession of the

          petitioner and 04 Kgs. of ganja was recovered from other co-

          accused person. He further submits that there is non compliance

          of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and

          also there is non complaince of Sections 103/105 of the

          B.N.S.S. and the recovered contraband is less than the

          commercial quantity, so there is no embargo under Section 37 of

          the N.D.P.S. Act to enlarge the petitioner on bail. He further

          submits that co-accused person Ajit Kumar from whose

          possession 04 Kgs. Of ganja was recovered has been granted

          bail by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2026 passed in Cr.

          Misc. No. 20489 of 2026. The petitioner is in custody since

          13.01.2026.

                       5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,

          vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

          and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and there

          is non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the

          N.D.P.S. Act and the recovered contraband is less than the

          commercial quantity and similarly situated co-accused person

          has been granted bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22803 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
                                            3/4




          named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Sessioins

          Judge cum Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Patna in connection

          with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026, subject to the following

          conditions :-

                       (1) 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.

                       (2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

          for cancellation of bail.

                       (3) And, further condition that the court below shall

          verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners 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.
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22803 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
                                                           4/4




                                      (3) 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)
Ibrar//-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.