Patna High Court
Ram Nath ChaupalversusThe 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 circumstances indicated that the petitioner could not be believed to be innocent or unlikely to re‑offend, invoking the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Ram Nath Chaupal was arrested on 11 July 2025 in connection with the recovery of 44.6 kg of ganja from a vehicle, alleged under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii), (c) and 22 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated, asserting he had no knowledge of the contraband. The State contended that Chaupal was seated in the vehicle and that the quantity recovered exceeded the commercial threshold, invoking the embargo on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities and held that the prosecution’s evidence created a reasonable belief of guilt and risk of re‑offending. Consequently, the Court refused the bail petition, denying release.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotic is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of lack of knowledge and clean antecedent is sufficient to overcome the Section 37 embargo.
- Whether the presence of the petitioner in the vehicle constitutes sufficient participation to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii), 20(c), 22, 37, 8
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- drug trafficking
- presumption of guilt
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28169 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2025 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Ram Nath Chaupal S/O Nepali Chaupal Village- Mahadewa, P.S.- Narahiya,
District -Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard Ms. Kumari Pallavi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
11.07.2025 in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 101 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b),(ii),
(c)/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of 44.6 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. She further submits that the
allegation as allegation in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and
the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the
F.I.R. and nothing has been recovered from the conscious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28169 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been made from
the vehicle in question. The petitioner is in custody since
11.07.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the
other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that altogether 44.6 Kgs. of contraband
(Ganja) has been recovered from the vehicle in question and the
petitioner was seated in the vehicle in question along with other
co-accused person. Learned counsel for the State 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 not to enlarge the petitioner on bail apart from
aforesaid for the same set of allegation the bail petition of co-
accused Krishna Kumar Thakur has been rejected by this Court
vide order dated 09.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6095 of
2026.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28169 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
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
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 Laukaha P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025,
pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge cum
Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Madhubani.
10. Prayer is refused.
Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U T
Checking your session…