Patna High Court
Dharmendra PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court was not convinced of the petitioner's innocence or that he would not reoffend, given the large quantity of ganja recovered.
Summary
Dharmendra Prasad was arrested on 5 April 2026 in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, after 39.937 kg of ganja was recovered from his residence. The petitioner pleaded that he has a clean record, was falsely implicated, and that the investigation failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, seeking bail. The State opposed bail, arguing that the large commercial quantity of narcotics triggers the embargo provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and that there is no reason to believe the petitioner is not guilty or would not reoffend. The court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases and held that the recovery of such a huge quantity does not establish the petitioner’s innocence nor assure non‑reoffending. Consequently, the court refused the bail prayer, dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotic is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner can demonstrate that he is not guilty and would not commit a similar offence if released.
- Whether alleged procedural non‑compliance with the NDPS Act can justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- commercial quantity
- narcotics seizure
- false implication
- procedural compliance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38680 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2026 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Dharmendra Prasad Son of Madan Sah Resident of Village- Kishanpur, Ward
No. 11, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2026 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
05.04.2026, in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 175 of
2026, FIR dated 05.04.2026 registered for the offence under
Sections 8(c),20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. Recovery is of 39.937 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. He further submits that
although the recovery has been made from the house of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38680 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
petitioner but there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions
of N.D.P.S Act. The petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2026.
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 39.837 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the
house of the petitioner and he was apprehended from the place
of occurrence and it appears from the FIR that huge quantity of
Ganja 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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38680 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
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 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 Bathnaha P.S. Case No.
175 of 2026, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, 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.