Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the recovery exceeded commercial quantity and the court was not convinced the petitioners were not guilty or would not reoffend.
Summary
Petitioners Rajesh Kumar Das and Sachin Kumar Das, accused under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act for possession of 52.200 kg of ganja, sought bail after being in custody since 15‑11‑2025. They claimed innocence, alleged that the FIR was fabricated and that Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing that the seized quantity exceeds the commercial threshold, invoking the embargo provision of Section 37 which requires the court to be convinced the accused are not guilty and will not reoffend. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. Finding no material to show the petitioners lacked knowledge of the narcotic or would not commit a similar offence, the court refused bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the quantity of narcotic seized exceeds the commercial quantity.
- Whether the petitioners have demonstrated that they are not guilty and will not commit a similar offence if released.
- Whether non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 20, 22, 37, 42, 50
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics
- criminal procedure
- presumption of guilt
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26412 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2025 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Rajesh Kumar Das Son of Chetak Das Resident of Village- Pipraun, P.S.-
Harlakhi, and District- Madhubani
2. Sachin Kumar Das Son of Chandar Das Resident of Village- Pipraun, P.S.-
Harlakhi, and District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Soban Asghar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. Md Soban Asghar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners seeks bail who are in custody since
15.11.2025 in connection with Harlakhi Case No. 317/2025 for
the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the
N.D.P.S. Act,
3. Recovery is of 52.200 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in
the present case. It appears from the F.I.R. that the allegation
against the petitioners are false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26412 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
FIR. He further submits that there is non-compliance of Sections
42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners
on the ground that petitioners carries one criminal antecedent
other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of
paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail
in the said matter. Learned counsel submits that it appears from
the FIR as well as seizure list that altogether 52.200 kg of Ganja
has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners 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 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.26412 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 petitioners had no knowledge of the
narcotic nor there is any material to substantiate that the
petitioners would not commit such offence in the event of
release.
9. Considering the fact that the recovered contraband
is more than the commercial quantity, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Harlakhi Case
No. 317/2025 pending in the Court of learned Court of Principal
Session Judge, Madhubani.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
atul/-
U T
Checking your session…