Patna High Court
Vicky Kumar @ Vicky Mestar @ Vikki KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the petitioner does not merit bail given the commercial quantity of the seized narcotic and the prior rejections.
Summary
The petitioner, Vicky Kumar, sought regular bail in a case under Sections 21(B) and 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, where six cartons of Codiwell cough syrup were recovered from his tempo. The petitioner argued that he was merely a tempo driver, had no control over the contraband, and that the prosecution witnesses examined so far had not supported the case, contending that he was likely to be acquitted. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity seized constituted a commercial amount and that the bail petition had already been rejected twice on merit. The High Court considered the commercial quantity, the prior rejections, and the ongoing trial, and concluded that the petitioner did not merit bail at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotic substances under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the prior rejection of bail applications and the stage of trial justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21(B), 21(C)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- pre‑trial detention
- trial acceleration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35099 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2023 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Vicky Kumar @ Vicky Mestar @ Vikki Kumar Son of Yogendra Mestar
Village- Sonbarsa, Ward No 3, PS -Sonbarsa, District -Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 317 of 2023 for the offences registered
under Sections 21(B)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, six cartons Codiwell
cough syrup, each containing 100 bottles (each bottle containing
100 ml) were recovered from the Tempo of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was twice rejected
vide orders dated 24.01.2024 and 29.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
Nos. 86495 of 2023 and 44352 of 2024 respectively. The trial is
still going on in which only two prosecution witnesses have
been examined and the last witness was examined on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35099 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
04.03.2024. The witnesses who have been examined have not
supported the prosecution’s case. He submits that petitioner was
working as a tempo driver for running his livelihood whereas
the tempo belongs to one Parmanand Sah and petitioner has no
concern with the alleged cough syrup. He further submits that
the said cartoons belong to one Vaidehi but he has not been
made accused in this case. Petitioner is in custody since
16.10.2023 and he is likely to be acquitted. He lastly submits
that petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits
that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was twice
rejected on merit by this Court and trial is going on in which
two witnesses have already been examined. The quantity of
recovered cough syrup comes under the category of commercial
quantity. Learned A.P.P. further submits that at this stage, the
accused/petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case,
submissions made on behalf of the parties, earlier the bail
petition of the petitioner was rejected twice, recovery of
commercial quantity of cough syrup and the case is running for
prosecution witnesses, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35099 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of petitioner
is rejected.
7. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the disposal of the case.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…