Patna High Court
Md AbdulversusThe Union of India through the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Muzaffarpur.
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the recovery involved a commercial quantity of ganja and the court was not convinced of the petitioner’s innocence or that he would not reoffend.
Summary
The petitioner, Md Abdul, a driver, was arrested on 10 February 2025 for alleged involvement in the transport of 580.2 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity, under the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, claiming a clean record and that he was merely a driver without knowledge of the narcotics, asserting procedural lapses in the seizure. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence opposed bail, emphasizing the large quantity recovered and compliance with mandatory provisions, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act which restricts bail in commercial‑quantity cases. The court examined precedents from the Supreme Court (State of Kerala v. Rajesh, NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh) regarding bail standards in such cases. Concluding that there was no sufficient reason to believe the petitioner was not guilty nor that he would not reoffend if released, the court denied the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case involving a commercial quantity of narcotic drug.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of knowledge and procedural lapses justify bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)c, 25, 29, 37
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- drug trafficking
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
- seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33514 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2024 Thana- D.R.I District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Md Abdul S/o Md. Daroga Resident of Village - Sareya, P.S. - Goriya Kothi,
District - Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Muzaffarpur. Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the DRI : Mr. Amit Pandey, Sr. S.C
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 14-05-2026 Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Amit Pandey, learned counsel for the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
10.02.2025 in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 107 of 2025
connected with DRI Case No. 17 of 2024-25 for the offences
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)c/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of 580.2 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. It appears from the F.I.R. as well
as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33514 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
2/3
conscious possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been
made from the truck in question and the petitioner has been
made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is
the driver of the truck in question. In fact, the petitioner has
given consignment by one Sri Bhan Singh and he has paid Rs.
5000/- advance to the petitioner and petitioner was apprehended
along with 580.2 Kgs. of Ganja. He further submits that there is
non compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Mr. Amit Pandey, learned counsel for the DRI, on
the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. as well as
seizure list it appears that altogether 580.2 Kgs. Of Ganja was
recovered from the truck in question and there is compliance of
mandatory provision of N.D.P.S. 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 petitioner has not committed the
offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33514 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
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 N.D.P.S. Case No. 107 of 2025
connected with DRI Case No. 17 of 2024-25, pending in the
Court of learned Exclusive Special Court-II (NDPS),
Muzaffarpur.
10. Prayer is refused.
Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.