Patna High Court
Md Sajid @ Karan @ Md SabirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Since the contraband recovered is not of commercial quantity, there is no embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and bail is granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Md Sajid, was arrested on 15 March 2026 for alleged possession of 19.52 g of smack/brown sugar and Rs 8,050 under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He filed a bail petition claiming the FIR was fabricated and that the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, thus not attracting the embargo provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, noting two other excise cases, though the petitioner was already on bail in those matters. The Court examined whether the quantity recovered warranted an embargo and concluded that, being less than commercial quantity, no embargo applied. Consequently, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the seized narcotic quantity is less than commercial quantity and therefore not subject to the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the alleged fabrication of the FIR and the petitioner’s claim of innocence affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s other pending cases influence the bail decision in the present NDPS matter.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotic drugs
- Section 37 embargo
- commercial quantity
- criminal antecedent
- fabricated FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30775 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2026 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Md Sajid @ Karan @ Md Sabir S/O Md Jumman @ Jugana Rishi R/O
Village- Kabristan Tola Zero Mile, ward no. 36, P.S.- Sadar , District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.Parmanand Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
15.03.2026 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 142 of
2026, F.I.R. dated 15.03.2026 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 8 (c)/21 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. Recovery is of 19.52 Gm of Smack/Brown Sugar
and Cash of Rs. 8050/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR and there is non-compliance of the mandatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30775 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
provisions of the NDPS Act and it appears from the FIR that
that 112 small Purias containing total weight 19.52 Gm of
Smack/Brown Sugar and Cash of Rs. 8050/- was recovered
from possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the recovered contraband is less than the
commercial quantity but more than the small quantity and apart
from that, Rs. 8050/- was also recovered from possession of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity.
Hence, there is no embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.Act
for grant of bail to the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody
since 15.03.2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner carries two more cases other than the
present one pertaining to Excise matter but fairly submits that
the petitioner is on bail in both the cases, as mentioned in para-3
of the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30775 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
ACT), Purnea in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 142 of
2026, with the following conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…