Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. Adil @ AdilversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted as the seized quantity was excessive, the accused had prior similar offences, and the trial was already underway.

Summary

Md. Adil was arrested in connection with a case under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act after police recovered 2,220 pieces of cough‑syrup containing 222 litres of codeine from his under‑construction house. He has been in custody since 22 January 2025 and faces three other similar charges. The petitioner sought bail for the second time, arguing that the trial had not yet concluded. The court noted the massive quantity seized, which far exceeds normal commercial amounts, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent of similar nature, and observed that the trial had already commenced. Considering these factors, the court declined to grant bail, dismissed the application, and directed the lower court to expedite the trial, while clarifying that its observations were limited to the bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act in view of the large quantity of seized narcotics, prior similar offences, and the commencement of trial?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • codeine
  • drug trafficking
  • criminal antecedent
  • trial expediting
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22900 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2024 Thana- SIMRAHA District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Adil @ Adil S/o Ibrahim Resident of Village- Mirzapur, Sonarpatti, Ward
                 No. 02, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Anish Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr.Md. Fahimuddin, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the

                   petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Simraha P.S. Case

                   No. 99 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 21(c)

                   of the NDPS Act.

                                 3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has

                   been rejected vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.

                   No. 27274 of 2025.

                                 4. There is recovery of 2220 pieces of cough syrup

                   (100 ml. each) from the under construction house of the

                   petitioner, who is in custody since 22.01.2025 and is accused in

                   3 more similar cases.

                                 5. Considering the fact that there is a huge recovery of
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22900 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     222 litres of codeine which is much more than the commercial

                     quantity and considering the criminal antecedent of similar

                     nature together with the fact that the trial has already started, I

                     am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                                  6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

                                  7. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial.

                                  8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made

                     herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail

                     application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at

                     any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express

                     any opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                          (Sandeep Kumar, J)

P. Kumar

U


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.