Patna High Court
Sikandar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
Bail cannot be granted where the accused is alleged to have possessed a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs unless the court is satisfied on both limbs of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which was not the case here.
Summary
The petitioner, Sikandar Mahto, was arrested for possession of 59 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, contending that the prosecution had not proved his guilt. The court examined the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that bail be granted only if the court is satisfied on two limbs: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to re‑offend. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 346), the court found no material to satisfy either limb. Consequently, the bail application was rejected. The order is limited to the bail application and does not prejudice the merits of the underlying criminal trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of possession of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the court is satisfied that the petitioner is not prima facie guilty and is unlikely to commit a similar offence if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotic drugs
- presumption of guilt
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33747 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2026 Thana- SAHARGHAT District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sikandar Mahto S/O Puneshwar Mahto Resident of Village- Bara Tole,
Sharghat, P.S- Saharghat, Distt.- Madhubani, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Saharghat P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026, registered for offences
punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C)/22(c) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, "the
NDPS Act").
3. The case of the prosecution is that 59 kg of ganja
was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The
recovered quantity is admittedly of commercial quantity within
the meaning of the NDPS Act.
4. Where a case involves recovery of commercial
quantity of narcotic drugs, the rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act come squarely into play. The said provision
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33747 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
mandates that no person accused of an offence involving
commercial quantity shall be enlarged on bail unless the Court
is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any such
offence while on bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of
India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 346, reiterated that in cases involving commercial
quantity of ganja, the Court must record its satisfaction on both
limbs of the twin conditions before bail can be granted. No such
satisfaction can be recorded on the facts of the present case.
Nothing has been placed before this Court to indicate any basis
for believing that the petitioner is not prima facie guilty of the
offences alleged, nor is there any material to suggest he would
not re-offend if enlarged on bail. The rigour of Section 37 thus
operates in full force, and this Court is not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
hereby rejected.
6. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33747 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.