Patna High Court
Arjun SinghversusThe 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 embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act preclude the grant of bail.
Summary
Arjun Singh was arrested on 9 March 2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 131 of 2025 for alleged possession of 69.650 kg of ganja, invoking Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, claiming a clean record and that the allegations were fabricated. The State opposed, highlighting that the seized quantity exceeds commercial limits, invoking the mandatory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and compliance with Section 50. The Court examined precedent from the Supreme Court on bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. Concluding that the large seizure and statutory provisions indicated a risk of re‑offending and lack of sufficient proof of innocence, the Court refused bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where a commercial quantity of narcotic has been seized.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of innocence and clean antecedents overcome the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR and seizure list establish a prima facie case justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 25, 37, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37 embargo
- narcotic drugs
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25185 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- HARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Arjun Singh S/o- Nar Bahadur Singh R/v- Jagarnathpur Gaon Palika Ps-
Serwa Dist- Parsa Nepal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, learned APP for
the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
09.03.2025 in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025
arising out of Harpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 25 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of 69.650 Kgs. of
Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25185 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
The petitioner is in custody since 09.03.2025.
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 F.I.R. as well as
seizure list that altogether 69.650 Kgs. of Ganja like Narcotic
Substance was recovered from the motorcycle in question and
petitioner was apprehended along with the aforesaid contraband
and there is compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of
the N.D.P.S. Act and the recovered contraband is more than the
commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act .
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery
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 petitioner has 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25185 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
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. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 131 of 2025 arising
out of Harpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, pending in the Court of
learned Exclusive Special Judge, Court No. II, NDPS Act, East
Champaran, Motihari.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…