Patna High Court
Rajnish Kumar Paswan @ Raj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner on the ground of clean antecedent, sub‑commercial quantity of contraband, and procedural defaults in the investigation.
Summary
Petitioner Rajnish Kumar Paswan was arrested on 29‑03‑2025 in connection with a seizure of 120 bottles (12 litres) of codeine‑phosphate and triprolidine syrup, alleged under Sections 21(C), 22(g) and 25 of the NDPS Act. He claimed a clean antecedent, that the allegations were fabricated, and that the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, rendering Section 37 inapplicable. The counsel highlighted non‑compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act and Sections 103/105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The State opposed bail. The Court, noting the petitioner’s clean record, the procedural lapses and the sub‑commercial quantity, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions for cooperation and non‑tampering. The bail order was directed to be implemented without delay for verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail jurisprudence when the seized narcotic quantity is below the commercial threshold under the NDPS Act?
- Do non‑compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 52 of the NDPS Act and Sections 103, 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act justify granting bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103, 105
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 21(C), 22(g), 25, 37, 50, 52
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- procedural compliance
- codeine
- drug trafficking
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22902 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2025 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Rajnish Kumar Paswan @ Raj Kumar S/O Vinay Kumar Nirala R/O vill.-
Adarsha Nagar, ward No.- 17, P.S- Sultanganj, Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
29.03.2025, in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 122 of
2025/NDPS Case No. 88 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 28.03.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
21( C)/22(g)/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985..
3. The case relates to recovery of 120 bottles of
Codeine Phosphate @ Triprolidine HCL Syrup Cough Linctus
RJT-Scen each bottles 100 ml i.e. total 12 litres.
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 well
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22902 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
as seizure list that altogether 120 bottles of Codeine Phosphate
@ Triprolidine HCL Syrup Cough Linctus RJT-Scen each
bottles 100 ml i.e. total 12 litres was recovered from the
possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
Although the present case comes under the purview of Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and apart from the aforesaid, 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 and from perusal of the seizure list
it appears that there is non compliance of mandatory provisions
of Sections 50 and 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act as well as there is non
compliance of Sections 103/105 of the B.N.S.S. He further
submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet
against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since
29.03.2025.
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 provisions of Sections 50 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22902 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
52 of the N.D.P.S. Act as well as there is non compliance of
Sections 103/105 of the B.N.S.S. and the recovered contraband
is less than the commercial quantity, let the petitioner, above
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 &
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur in connection with
Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 122 of 2025/N.D.S. Case No. 88 of
2025, 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22902 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(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
Checking your session…