Patna High Court
Obaidur MominversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail is not permissible where the accused is in conscious possession of a commercial quantity of narcotic, as the court must be convinced of the accused's lack of knowledge and likelihood of reoffending under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Obaidur Momin, was arrested on 13 March 2026 for alleged possession of 1.5 kg of smack, invoking Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act. He claimed a clean antecedent and that the FIR was fabricated, seeking bail. The prosecution countered that the narcotic and personal items were recovered from his conscious possession, amounting to a commercial quantity, thereby invoking the embargo provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court examined the stringent bail standards for NDPS cases, citing Supreme Court precedents that require a belief the accused is not likely to reoffend and has no knowledge of the contraband. Concluding that the facts did not satisfy these criteria, the court refused the bail application. The petition for bail was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the accused is found in conscious possession of a commercial quantity of narcotic.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that he is unlikely to commit a similar offence if released.
- Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the context of bail for offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 25.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 25, 37, 42, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- conscious possession
- Section 37
- drug trafficking
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32745 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2026 Thana- R S P.S. District- Araria
======================================================
Obaidur Momin Son of Ismain Momin R/o Village - Bhagalpur, P.S. -
Kaliyachak, District - West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
13.03.2026 in connection with R.S. (Araria) P.S. Case No. 53 of
2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and
25 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 1.500 kg of Smack.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32745 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that from perusal of the seizure list it appears that
altogether 1.500 kg of contraband (Smack) has been recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner and apart from
that one mobile phone, one Aadhar Card etc., have also been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He
further submits that there is compliance of Section 42 and 50 of
the NDPS Act 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
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in
AIR 2022 SC 3444 and Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32745 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
@ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated
28.03.2023.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of contraband
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 R.S. (Araria) P.S. Case No. 53 of 2026
pending in the Court of learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Araria.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.