Patna High Court
Karan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court was not convinced that the petitioner was not involved in the offence and the recovery of commercial quantity invoked the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Karan Kumar was arrested on 3 November 2025 in connection with an NDPS case (Case No. 81 of 2025) for alleged possession of 467.61 grams of smack, invoking Sections 8(c), 21(c), 18(c), 29 and 31 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and asserted that the FIR was fabricated, seeking bail on the ground of false implication. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity seized exceeded the commercial threshold, thereby triggering the embargo provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents that require a clear belief that the accused is not involved and will not reoffend before granting bail in such cases. Finding no material to dispel the suspicion and noting the commercial quantity, the judge refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where a commercial quantity of narcotic has been recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of knowledge satisfies the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail.
- Whether the court must be satisfied that the accused will not commit a similar offence if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 18(c), 21(c), 29, 31, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics
- embargo
- false implication
- suspicion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40130 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-473 Year-2025 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Karan Kumar S/o Bullu Paswan R/o Village- Purani Machhli Bazar, P.S-
Nagar @ Town, Dist- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
03.11.2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 81 of 2025
arising out of Ballia P.S. Case No. 473 of 2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 18(c), 29 and 31 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 467.61 grams of Smack.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
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 he has been made accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40130 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/3
in the present case only on the basis of suspicion and except the
suspicion, nothing has come during investigation which suggest
the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that altogether 467.61 grams of Smack has been
recovered from the possession of the petitioner and other
accused persons and the recovered contraband is more than the
commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act. There is compliance of mandatory provisions
of NDPS 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 petitioners have 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
Ors. reported in (2020) 12 SCC, 122 as well as in the case of
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40130 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
3/3
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 contraband
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. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 81 of 2025 arising out
of Ballia P.S. Case No. 473 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge 1st -cum-Special
Judge, NDPS Act & P.O. of Children Court, Begusarai.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.