Patna High Court
Prince KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
Bail was denied because the petitioner’s alleged direct involvement, the commercial quantity of narcotics seized, and indications of organized activity outweighed the grounds for release.
Summary
The petitioner, Prince Kumar, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act after a vehicle stop led to the seizure of 285 grams of a smack-like substance. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that no contraband was found in his personal possession, and that the police failed to follow the procedural requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing that the seized quantity exceeded the commercial threshold and that the use of a mobile phone suggested organized drug trafficking. The court, after considering the direct involvement of the petitioner, the large quantity seized, and the indication of organized activity, declined to grant bail. The order was made on a prima facie basis and does not prejudice the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act given the facts of the case.
- Whether the police complied with the procedural requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- commercial quantity
- search and seizure
- organized crime
- Section 50 compliance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35185 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2026 Thana- BALRAMPUR District- Katihar
======================================================
Prince Kumar S/o Arun Jaiswal, R/o Harnaut Chowk, P.S.- Gopalpur, Distt.-
Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 The matter was heard via video conferencing mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Balrampur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2026, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. As per prosecution case, during the course of
vehicle checking, a car was signaled to stop and from the search of
the said car, recovery of 285 grams of smack like substance was
made.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner. During search and seizure
the Police did not comply with the provision of Section 50 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35185 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
2/2
N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner has
clean antecedent and he is in custody since 27.03.2026.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that 285 grams of smack was recovered from the car in
question which is more than the commercial quantity.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, the direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged
occurrence, the fact that he was arrested from the spot, the quantity
of recovered contraband and further considering the fact that use
of mobile phone for drug dealing indicates organized activity, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
stands rejected.
9. 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 observation shall
not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and
shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.