Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the court was not convinced that the petitioner was uninvolved or unlikely to reoffend, and the commercial quantity triggered the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Vikash Kumar Singh was arrested on 1 October 2025 in connection with a case involving the recovery of 652 grams of brown sugar, alleged to be a narcotic under Sections 21(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, claiming a clean record and that the FIR was fabricated, while the State argued that the quantity exceeded the commercial limit, invoking an embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court examined the Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. It found no material to show that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the narcotic or would not reoffend if released. Consequently, the court refused bail, holding that the statutory embargo applied. The petition for bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the alleged narcotic quantity exceeds the commercial limit under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that he is not likely to commit a similar offence if released.
- Whether procedural requirements of the NDPS Act were complied with in the FIR and recovery.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 22(c), 37
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics
- brown sugar
- presumption of guilt
- embargo
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3620 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2025 Thana- Rangara District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Vikash Kumar Singh S/o Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Kumar Singh R/o vill -
Madrouni, P.S.- Rangra, Distt.- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
01.10.2025 in connection with Rangra P.S. Case No. 242 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and
22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of 652 Grams of
Brown Sugar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3620 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that
652 Grams of Brown Sugar was recovered from the accused
persons and there is non compliance of mandatory provisions of
N.D.P.S. Act and co-accused person has been granted bail by the
learned Court below itself.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the
other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears
that altogether 652 grams of Brown Sugar was recovered from
the accused persons 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3620 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
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 Brown Sugar
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 Rangra P.S. Case No. 242 of 2025,
pending in the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Bhagalpur.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…