Patna High Court
Md. Nausad @ Md. NaushadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted as the seized quantity was below commercial quantity and no embargo under Section 37 applied, and the statutory requirements for denial of bail were not satisfied.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Nausad, was arrested on 7 October 2025 in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act for possession of 48.1 grams of smack, which was recovered from a co‑accused, Bablu Alam. The petitioner claimed he was merely accompanying the co‑accused, that the allegation was fabricated, and that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with; moreover, the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, negating the embargo under Section 37. The prosecution opposed bail, citing two prior criminal antecedents, but noted the petitioner was already on bail for those matters. The High Court, after considering the facts, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The bail order was subject to cancellation if conditions were breached.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the alleged NDPS offences.
- Whether the quantity of narcotic seized triggers the embargo provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act affects the grant of bail.
- Impact of the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 37, 42, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- quantity less than commercial
- co‑accused
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39369 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2025 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria
======================================================
Md. Nausad @ Md. Naushad Son of Sri Mohammad Mukhtar Resident of
village -Sisona PS -Araria District -Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 Heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
07.10.2025 in Araria P.S. Case No. 418 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
06.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21
(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 48.1 grams of Smack.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent 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. It appears from the FIR that nothing has been
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39369 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
recovery has been made from the possession of co-accused
person, namely, Bablu Alam and the petitioner has been made
accused merely on the ground that he was accompanying the
said Bablu Alam. He further submits that there is non-
compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections 42 and 50 of
the N.D.P.S. Act and it appears that the recovered contraband is
less than the commercial quantity. Hence, there is no embargo
under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act for grant of bail to the
petitioner. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted the charge sheet. The petitioner is in custody since
07.10.2025.
5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner was arrested along with the co-
accused person and apart from that the petitioner carries two
criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly
submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that
the petitioner is on bail in the said matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Session
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39369 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Araria in connection with
Araria P.S. Case No. 418 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.