Patna High Court
Ashutosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the court was not convinced that the petitioner was not guilty nor that he would not commit a similar offence if released.
Summary
Ashutosh Kumar was arrested on 17‑10‑2025 in connection with a case involving the recovery of 89.742 kg of ganja, alleged to be in violation of Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the narcotics were recovered from a scrap shop linked to another accused, Zakir Khan, and that his earlier disclosure in a separate case led to the present seizure. The State of Bihar and the Union of India opposed bail, citing a prior similar offence and the commercial quantity of the drug, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act which restricts bail in such cases. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents that require a belief that the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend before granting bail. Concluding that the petitioner’s claim did not overcome the statutory presumption, the court refused bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the alleged offence involves a commercial quantity of narcotic and the accused has a prior similar conviction.
- Whether the petitioner’s assertion of innocence and lack of knowledge of the narcotics is sufficient to merit bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(B)(ii)(c), 29, 37
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- prior conviction
- Section 37
- narcotics
- drug trafficking
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26268 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2025 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran
======================================================
Ashutosh Kumar S/o Navin Kumar Thakur R/o - Harishankar Maniyari P.S -
Maniyari District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Union of India
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
For the UOI : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the
Union of India and Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned APP for
the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
17.10.2025 in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 196 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) (ii) (c)
and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 89.742 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that as per the allegation in the
F.I.R. altogether 89.742 kg of Ganja has been recovered from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26268 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
the scrap shop of one Zakir Khan. He further submits that the
petitioner was arrested in Harpur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 in
which 78.900 kg of Ganja has been recovered and on the basis
of the disclosure made by the petitioner in Harpur P.S. Case No.
60 of 2025 the recovery in the present case has been made.
5. Learned counsel for the Union of India as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner carries one criminal antecedent of
similar nature other than the present one. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26268 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I
am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 196 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned Exclusive Special Judge Court No.II, NDPS East
Champaran, Motihari.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…