Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar @ Arbind PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the seriousness of the offences and the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotics and a firearm preclude the grant of bail at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Arvind Kumar, sought bail for alleged offences under the NDPS Act, Arms Act and Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police recovered 20.5 kg of ganja, Nepali currency and a US‑made pistol from his house. He claimed innocence, alleged procedural violations of Section 105 of the BNSS during seizure, and argued that the weight of the contraband would fall below commercial quantity if the sack weight were deducted. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics and a firearm, and noted that the charge‑sheet was filed after the forensic report. The court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail at this stage, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotics and a firearm.
- Whether alleged procedural lapses in seizure under Section 105 of the BNSS warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 105
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Arms Act
- seizure procedure
- commercial quantity
- trial expedite
- procedural lapse
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28928 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- Basmatia District- Araria
======================================================
Arvind Kumar @ Arbind Paswan S/o Kulanand Paswan Resident Of Village-
Basmatiya, Ward No 6, P.S.- Basmatiya, Dist.- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mandal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Basmatiya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act,
Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act and Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the
house of this petitioner, altogether 20.5 kg of ganja in two plastic
sacks and some Nepali currency and a pistol made in USA were
recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no
offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also
submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28928 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
2/2
the petitioner. The witnesses of the seizure list are police
personnel, and the police have not complied with Section 105 of
the BNSS while making the seizure. He further submits that the
weight of the contraband is with sacks, and if the weight of the
sacks is deducted, the contraband will fall below the commercial
quantity. Moreover, a statement has been made in paragraph 3 of
the petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is
languishing in judicial custody since 08.12.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and submits that from the possession of this
petitioner, commercial quantity of ganja has been recovered. He
also submits that from perusal of the case diary, it is clear that the
charge-sheet has been filed after the FSL report.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, however,
he may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not
concluded.
7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same within the stipulated period of time.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.