Patna High Court
Ghanshyam Sah @ Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Prasad KeshariversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met because the petitioner was deemed the main dealer of a commercial quantity of prohibited medicines, justifying denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ghanshyam Prasad Keshari, applied for regular bail in a case involving the alleged seizure of 2,960 litres of Phensedyl cough syrup, alleged to be a commercial quantity of prohibited medicines. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was the main dealer of the contraband, citing a mobile number linked to him and a confessional statement of a co‑accused, despite his name not appearing in the FIR. The petitioner contended innocence, claiming he neither owned nor was driving the vehicle at the time of seizure and that the charges were based solely on the co‑accused’s statement. The court examined the two conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and the likelihood of committing further offences – and found them unsatisfied. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, the court held that the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s alleged role as a main dealer warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the accused is alleged to be the main dealer of a commercial quantity of prohibited medicines.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of innocence and lack of direct naming in the FIR satisfy the requirement of reasonable grounds for bail.
- Whether the stage of the trial, with charges framed but no witness examination, influences the grant of regular bail.
Legislation cited
- Drug and Cosmetics Act, 2008 — s. 27(b)(ii), 27(d), 28
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 22, 37
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Drug and Cosmetics Act
- commercial quantity
- regular bail
- drug trafficking
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35310 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2023 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Ghanshyam Sah @ Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Prasad Keshari S/O Late
Murahu @ Nurahu Sah R/o Vill - Naugadh Baghi (Naggad), P.S - Naugad,
District - Chandauli, U.P
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 10-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Shyam Kumar Singh, the learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 215 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 27(b)(ii), 27(d) and 28
of the Drug and Cosmetics Act and under Section 22 of the
NDPS Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 11.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 72323 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this
application for grant of regular bail in
connection with Kuchaikot P.S. Case No. 215 of
2023 registered for the offence punishable under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35310 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026
2/4
Sections 27 (b)(ii), 27 (d) and 28 of the Drug
Cosmetic Act, 2008 and Section 22 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total
2960 litres of Phensedyl cough syrup was
recovered from the truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and
has falsely been implicated in this case. The
petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle
andthe same was not being driven by him at the
time of the alleged recovery. The petitioner is
not named in the FIR and his name has
transpired in this case merely on the basis of
confessional statement of the co-accused
Gurudeep Singh. The petitioner has one criminal
antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
The petitioner is in custody since 13.07.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the bail petition of the
petitioner by submitting that the seized
contraband is the commercial quantity and the
petitioner had no valid authorization for keeping
the same. It is further submitted that though the
petitioner is not name in the FIR but the mobile
number which was disclosed by the
apprehended coaccused persons is of the
petitioner which corroborates the complicity of
the petitioner in the present case and they also
disclosed that the petitioner is the main dealer of
such sort of prohibited medicines.
6. As per Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, the two conditions are that the Court should
be satisfied with :-
(i) There are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of such
offence; and
(ii) He is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
7. If either of these two conditions is
not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused
cannot be released on bail. The Courtis of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35310 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026
3/4
opinion that the parameters of bail available
under Section 37 of the Act have not satisfied in
the facts of the instant case. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control
Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 891 has held that “The length of the period
of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet
has been filed and the trial has commenced are
by themselves not considerations that can be
treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief
to the respondent under Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.”
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the fact that
the petitioner is the main dealer of the said
prohibited medicines coupled with the fact that
the said recovery is of commercial quantity, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner and the same is rejected.
9. Accordingly, the application stands
rejected.
4. It is submitted that the trial has not progressed
against the petitioner. Although charges have been framed but
no witness has been examined.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not
inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this
application for regular bail stands dismissed.
6. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj is directed
to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35310 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026
4/4
Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj through FAX or e-mail for
immediate compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.