Akash KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38319 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2026 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL District-
                                                         Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Akash Kumar Son of Dayanand yadav @ Sadanand Yadav R/O-Village -
                 Raghunathpur, Ward No.04 ,P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, District - Begusarai

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   22-06-2026                      Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel

                   for the petitioner and Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, learned A.P.P.

                   for the State.

                                    2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   22.03.2026, in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 40 of

                   2026, FIR dated 22.03.2026 registered for the offence under

                   Sections 2021(c) of the NDPS Act.

                                  3. Recovery is of 408 gram of Smack.

                                  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. He further submits that it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38319 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
                                            2/3




          appears from the FIR and seizure list that 408 gram Smack was

          recovered from the possession of co-accused, Mitthu Kumar and

          nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of

          this petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2026.

                          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 408 gram of Smack has been recovered from the

          possession       co-accused       person      and    this   petitioner   was

          apprehended along with the co-accused person and it appears

          from the FIR that huge quantity of Smack 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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38319 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
                                                        3/3




                      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

                      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 Smack from

                      possession of the co-accused person along with whom the

                      petitioner was apprehended, 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 Muffasil P.S. Case No. 40

                      of 2026,        pending in the court of learned Special Judge

                      (N.D.P.S. Act), Khagaria.

                                   10. Prayer is refused.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-

U      T