Patna High Court
Rambhu Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the commercial quantity of ganja recovered precludes the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Rambhu Kumar Yadav, was arrested on 7 February 2026 in connection with a case alleging possession of 39.07 kg of ganja, invoking Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 27(a), 23(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity recovered constitutes a commercial amount, triggering the stringent bail provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in commercial‑quantity NDPS cases, noting that bail can be granted only if there is reason to believe the accused is not guilty and will not re‑offend. Finding no material to support the petitioner's claim of innocence or that he would not commit a similar offence if released, the court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the alleged quantity of narcotic is of commercial size.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that he is not guilty and would not commit a similar offence if released.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c), 25, 27(a), 29, 37
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- commercial quantity
- drug trafficking
- Section 37
- narcotics
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38301 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2026 Thana- KANGLI District- West Champaran
======================================================
Rambhu Kumar Yadav S/o- Lakshandeo Yadav R/o- Sonbarsa Bairiya Ps-
Pathraiya Dist-Parsa, Nepal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through Narcotic New Delhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2026 Heard Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
07.02.2026, in connection with Kangli P.S. Case No. 14 of
2026, FIR dated 07.02.2026 registered for the offence under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 27(a), 23(c), 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Recovery is of 39.07 kg 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
any offence as alleged in the FIR and it is not clear from the FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38301 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
that from whom possession the alleged recovery of contraband
has been made. The petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2026.
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 39.07 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the joint
possession of the petitioner and co-accused persons and it
appears from the FIR that huge quantity of Ganja was recovered
which is more than commercial quantity 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.
Rajesh & Ors, reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 as well as in the
case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38301 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
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 Ganja from
possession of the petitioner and other co-accused persons 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 Kangli P.S. Case No. 14 of
2026 pending in the court of learned Excluisve special Judge
(N.D.P.S. Act), West Champaran, Bettiah.
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.