Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the recovery of commercial quantity of ganja invoked the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Sah, was arrested on 3 February 2026 for alleged involvement in the recovery of 424.718 kg of ganja, charged under IPC sections 399, 402 and 34 and NDPS Act sections 8 and 20(ii)(c). He sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the seized narcotics were found in a truck, not in his conscious possession, and that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The State opposed bail, arguing that the quantity exceeded commercial limits, invoking the embargo provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and that the mandatory provisions were satisfied. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the large quantity indicated knowledge and risk of re‑offending, thereby triggering the Section 37 embargo. Consequently, the bail petition was refused.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the quantity of narcotic seized exceeds the commercial threshold.
- Whether the petitioner had knowledge or conscious possession of the seized ganja.
- Whether the embargo provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 399, 402
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(ii)(c), 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37 embargo
- commercial quantity
- narcotics
- IPC
- possession
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39989 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2026 Thana- Haraiya District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Sah S/o Jaylal Sah Resident of Village- Ward No. 5, Nautan,
Bahuari, P.S.- Kalaiya, District- Bara, Nepal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore@ Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Kundan Rathore @ Kundan Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Veerendra
Narayan, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
03.02.2026 in connection with N.D.P.S. G.R. Case No. 18 of
2026 arising out of Haraiya P.S. Case No. 25 of 2026 for the
offences punishable under Sections 399, 402/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, Sections 8, 20(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of 424.718 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. It appears from the F.I.R. as well
as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39989 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/3
conscious possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been
made from the Truck in question and altogether 424.718 Kgs. of
Ganja like substance was recovered and there is non compliance
of mandatory provision of N.D.P.S. Act. He further submits that
the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2026.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the
other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that the
recovered contraband is more than the commercial quantity, so
there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and apart
from that there is compliance of mandatory provision of
N.D.P.S. Act.
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 Substance Act, 1985,
Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must
have reason to believe that 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 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39989 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
3/3
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 Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated
28.03.2023.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja recovered
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 circumstance of
the case as well as the recovered contraband is more than the
commercial quantity and there is embargo under Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in connection with N.D.P.S. G.R. Case No. 18 of 2026
arising out of Haraiya P.S. Case No. 25 of 2026, pending in the
Court of learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, East
Champaran, Motihari.
10. Prayer is refused.
Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.