Patna High Court
Golu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted because the petitioner had a clean antecedent, the seized narcotic was recovered from the co‑accused, and the quantity was below the commercial threshold, rendering Section 37 inapplicable to refuse bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Golu Kumar, was arrested on 30‑12‑2025 in connection with a case under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act for allegedly selling a small quantity of smack. The prosecution’s case relied on a confession by a co‑accused, Md. Azad, who recovered 9.37 g of the drug from his own pocket, while no contraband was found on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that he had a clean antecedent, the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, and the presumption under Section 37 should not apply. The High Court considered these submissions and the fact that the evidence against the petitioner was indirect. It granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in denying bail when the seized quantity is less than commercial quantity and recovered from a co‑accused?
- Whether a clean antecedent and lack of direct possession justify granting bail to an accused under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 8
- Section 21
- Section 37
- clean antecedent
- quantity less than commercial
- co‑accused
- presumption of possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40765 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARIA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Golu Kumar Son of Dina Ram Resident of village - Phulwaria 01, Barauni
Nagar Parishad Ward No.- 08, Durga Asthan, P.S.- Phulwaria, District -
Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of
Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvottam Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
30.12.2025 in connection with Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 219 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b) of
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on
29.12.2025 at about 05:30 PM during patrolling at Vatika
Chowk, the informant got secret information that two persons
were selling substance like Smack in the garden of Pappu Rai
situated at Saidpur Tola. Thereafter, the informant and others
reached at the spot and found that two persons were warming
themselves by fire in the garden. On seeing police force, both
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40765 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/4
the persons tried to flee, but they were apprehended with the
help of police force. Upon query, the said persons stated their
names as FIR named accused Md. Azad and Golu Kumar and
they also confessed that they were secretly selling smack. Upon
searching, substance like brown powder Smack of 09.37 gram
from the pocket of Md. Azad was recovered. A realme screen
touch mobile, PAN card, Atm card Rs 600/- cash were recovered
from the possession of accused Golu Kumar. Accused Md. Azad
further stated that as per instruction of Prashant Choudhary @
Mogla, he and Golu Kumar used to sell the smack. They sold
three pudia till now and amount of the said pudia was in the
possession of Golu Kumar. They used to talk through nobile of
Golu Kumar. Thereafter seizure list was prepared at the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submits that it appears from the FIR and seizure that
altogether 9.37 grams of smack was recovered from the pocket
of Md. Azad. It is next submitted that name of the petitioner has
transpired on the disclosure made by Md. Azad and except the
aforesaid nothing has come to suggest the involvement of the
petitioner in the present occurrence. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40765 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
3/4
petitioner further submits that the recovered contraband is less
than the commercial quantity so there is no embargo of Section
37 of the NDPS Act to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Apart from
that while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner, the learned
trial court on 02.02.2026 has recorded that the petitioner has
made renewal of the prayer after submission of the charge-sheet.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that from
perusal of the impugned order it appears that charge now has
been framed against the petitioner and petitioner is in custody
since 30.12.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that petitioner has clean antecedent and recovery
has been made from the possession of the co-accused person, 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 Court of
Principal Sessions Judge, Begusarai in connection with
Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 219 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40765 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
4/4
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)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.