Patna High Court
Alok Kumar @ ShivamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court found no sufficient reason to believe the accused was not involved in the offence and might reoffend.
Summary
Alok Kumar was arrested on 4 July 2025 in connection with a case under the NDPS Act and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after 746 grams of smack were recovered – 116 grams from a bag on a motorcycle he was allegedly riding and about 630 grams from a house that is owned by his maternal grandparents. The petitioner claimed he was not in possession of the drugs and was falsely implicated, arguing that the house was not his exclusive property. The State opposed bail, contending that the large quantity constituted a commercial amount, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act which restricts bail in such cases. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents (State of Kerala v. Rajesh, NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh) emphasizing that bail can be granted only if there is reason to believe the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend. Considering the facts and the commercial quantity recovered, the court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotic is recovered.
- Whether the accused had knowledge of or control over the seized narcotics given the circumstances of recovery.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 18, 20(b), 22(a), 37
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics possession
- bail refusal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25309 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai
======================================================
Alok Kumar @ Shivam S/o Rupesh Kumar Choudhary R/o Village - Dak
Banglow Chowk Vishnupur, P.S- Town District - Begusarai... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
04.07.2025, in connection with N.D.P.S P.S. Case No. 31 of 2025
arising out of Town P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025, FIR dated
04.07.2025 registered for the offence under Sections
18/20(b)/22(a) of the NDPS Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
3. Recovery is of 746 grams of smack.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. As per allegation in the FIR 116 grams of smack is
stated to have been recovered from a polythene bag tied to the
handle of the motorcycle on which the petitioner was allegedly
sitting. Thereafter a further recovery of about 630 grams of smack
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25309 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
is alleged to have been made from a house at the instance of the
petitioner. It appears from the FIR that nothing has been recovered
from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has
been made from the house of the petitioner but the petitioner was
not present at his house. He next submits that petitioner is not the
absolute owner of the house in question, rather the same belongs to
his maternal grandparents, where multiple family members reside.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on the
basis of the material available on the record, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
altogether 746 grams of smack has been recovered from the house
of the petitioner and possession of the petitioner and it appears
from the FIR that huge quantity of Smack was recovered so there
is embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant privilege of
bail to the petitioner.
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 Substances Act, 1985,
Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must
have reason to believe that the petitioner has not committed the
offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar
offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25309 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
7. The issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors Vs. Rajesh & Ors,
reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 as well as in the case of Narcotic
Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in AIR 2022 SC
3444 and recently decided the judgment in the case of Union of
India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 346.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Smack from
possession of the petitioner and house of the petitioner 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. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of
allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 261 of
2025 pending in the court of learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, P.O of Children
Court, Begusarai.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…