Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. Maksood @ Md. Maksood AlamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Maksood Alam, was charged under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 25.69 g of smack, seized by police. The petitioner contended that no contraband was actually recovered and that the seizure was not made in compliance with Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act. He also highlighted that he had been in judicial custody since 10 December 2025 and argued that the quantity seized, though more than a ‘small quantity’, was far below a commercial amount. The State opposed bail, citing three prior criminal cases against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the Court, noting the procedural lapse and the relatively small quantity, granted bail on condition of a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the alleged seizure exceeds the statutory ‘small quantity’ but is less than a commercial quantity.
  • Whether non‑compliance with Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act during seizure warrants bail.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • drug possession
  • procedural lapse
  • seizure
  • prior criminal antecedent
  • judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23094 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2025 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Maksood @ Md. Maksood Alam son of Md. Nijamuddin @ Md.
                 Nizamuddin R/O- Makhdumpur, Haflaganj, Sirnia, P. S- Muffassil, District-
                 Katihar

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Muffasil P.S. Case No.293 of 2025 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 8(c) & 21(b) of the NDPS

                   Act.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, is that, altogether

                   25.69 gm of smack was recovered from the possession of this

                   petitioner.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from

                   the possession of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the

                   petitioner has further submitted that the witnesses of the seizure
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23094 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      list are police personnel and police has not complied Section

                      105 of the BNSS while making seizure. It has further been

                      submitted that the alleged recovery of contraband is though

                      more than small quantity but is much less than commercial

                      quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

                      submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since

                      10.12.2025.

                                   5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                      for the State. Learned APP has further submitted that the

                      petitioner is having criminal antecedent of three cases.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                      inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                      petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                      bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                      of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned

                      Principal District & Sessions Judge, Katihar in connection with

                      Muffasil P.S. Case No.293 of 2025.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

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.