Patna High Court
Inglesh Tiwari @ Inglish TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail cannot be granted as the recovery of commercial quantity of ganja triggers the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Inglesh Tiwari was arrested on 17‑10‑2025 in connection with a case under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 after 78.63 kg of ganja was seized from a suitcase allegedly in his possession. The petitioner sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the FIR was fabricated. The State opposed, highlighting that the quantity exceeds commercial limits, that the petitioner admitted receiving the narcotic from co‑accused, and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes an embargo on bail in such cases. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS matters and noted the lack of material to show the petitioner would not re‑offend. Consequently, the Court refused the bail prayer, holding that the commercial quantity and statutory provisions preclude release.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where a commercial quantity of narcotic has been recovered.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that he is not likely to commit a similar offence if released.
- Whether the facts establish the petitioner’s possession and knowledge of the seized narcotic.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 20(B)(ii)(c), 22, 37, 50
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37 embargo
- narcotics possession
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26192 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-461 Year-2025 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan
======================================================
Inglesh Tiwari @ Inglish Tiwari Son of Late Brij Kishore Tiwari R/O Vill.-
Hullash Chapra, P.S.- Goria Kothi, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Anant Kumar 1, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
17.10.2025 in connection with Panchrukhi P.S. Case No. 461 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) and
22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 78.63 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR as
well as seizure list that recovery has been from the suitcase in
question and the petitioner has no role at all in the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26192 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
occurrence.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that from perusal of the FIR as well as seizure list it
appears that altogether 78.63 kg of Ganja has been recovered
from the possession of the petitioner and apart from that there is
compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act and the petitioner has disclosed that he has received the said
Ganja from the co-accused persons. He further submits that 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 petitioners have 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
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26192 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the recovered contraband is more than the commercial
quantity, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Panchrukhi P.S. Case No. 461 of 2025 pending
in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Siwan.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…