Patna High Court
Vir Bahadur Manto @ Veer Bahadur MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in view of the commercial quantity of narcotics recovered.
Summary
Vir Bahadur Manto, arrested on 31‑08‑2025, sought bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 18.366 kg of charas and 3.200 kg of ganja from a house linked to him. He contended that he had no prior criminal record, was falsely implicated, and that the narcotics were not found in his conscious possession. The State argued that the large quantity constituted a commercial amount, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act to deny bail. The court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. Finding that the recovery created a presumption of guilt and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate he would not reoffend if released, the court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotics is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner can rebut the presumption of guilt arising from the recovery of narcotics from his premises.
- Whether there is sufficient material to believe the petitioner will not commit a similar offence if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111(3)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(B)(C), 23, 25, 29, 37, 61, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- presumption of guilt
- narcotics
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37640 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-596 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Vir Bahadur Manto @ Veer Bahadur Mahto S/o Late Kuldip Mahto R/o
Village - Parihar ward no.13, P.S.- Parihar, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
31.08.2025, in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 596 of
2025, FIR dated 30.08.2025 registered for the offence under
Sections 111(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and
8/20(b)(ii)(B)(C)/23/25/29/61 of the NDPS Act.
3. Recovery is of 18.366 kgs of Charas and 3.200
kgs of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37640 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR that
nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the
petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the house in
question but the the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the
house in question.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on
the basis of the material available on the record, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
altogether 10.110 kgs of Charas has been recovered from the
house of the petitioner and it appears from the FIR that huge
quantity of contraband was recovered so there is embargo under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant privilege of bail to the
petitioner.
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
Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant
of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that the 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37640 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
Rajesh & Ors, reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 as well as in the
case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal
reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444 and recently decided the
judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of contraband
from the house of the petitioner 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. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of
allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.
596 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Session Judge-cum-
Special Judge (NDPS), Sitamarhi.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.