Patna High Court
Sanjay KumarversusTHE UNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, was arrested in connection with NCB No. 2 of 2021 for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, after a seizure of more than three hundred kilograms of ganja and the imposition of an embargo under Section 37. He applied for regular bail for the second time, contending that he had been in custody since February 2021 while co‑accused had been granted bail in separate proceedings. The prosecution argued that the earlier bail application had been rejected and that the case was now at the stage of final arguments before the Special Judge. The court noted that the trial was still pending and that the seriousness of the offence, the large quantity seized, and the embargo justified denial of bail. Consequently, the court refused the bail application but directed the Special Court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the large quantity of narcotics seized and the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prolonged pre‑trial detention of nearly five years warrants bail, considering that co‑accused have been released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- embargo
- large quantity of narcotics
- pre‑trial detention
- co‑accused bail disparity
- patna high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42012 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2021 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Arjun Rai Resident of Village- Beyapur, PS- Maner,
Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union Of India & Anr.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.K.Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Jay, Adv.
Mr. Hazique Shams Ali, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. C.G.C.
Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, C.G.C.
Mr. Lokesh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
10 13-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The application is for grant of bail to the petitioner
who is in custody in connection with NCB No. 2 of 2021
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)
(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail as earlier the prayer for bail of
the petitioner was turned down by this Court vide order dated
15.09.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32681 of 2022,
taking into consideration the recovery of huge quantity of ganja
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42012 of 2025(10) dt.13-02-2026
2/3
of more than three hundred kilograms and the embargo as
provided under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been
incarcerated since 09.02.2021 and in the meanwhile, other co-
accused persons have been allowed the privilege of regular bail
by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 75464 of 2023 vide
order dated 05.01.2024 and further in Criminal Miscellaneous
No. 60500 of 2024 vide order dated 25.10.2024. However, till
date, the trial has not been concluded and now the petitioner has
remained in custody for almost a period of five years.
5. Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Senior Central
Government Counsel alongwith Mr. R.K.Sharma, learned
Central Government Counsel submits that besides the fact the
earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was negated by this
Court. Now the case is fixed for final argument before the
learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Aurangabad, as prosecution has
completed his argument, while the defence has to conclude their
argument.
6. A report has also been called for by the concerned
Court and it has been apprised that the case is running for final
argument and the same is likely to be concluded within a short
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42012 of 2025(10) dt.13-02-2026
3/3
span of time.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact that the case is running for final argument, this Court is
not acceded to the prayer for bail of the petitioner. However, it is
expected that the learned Special Court shall expedite the
hearing and bring to its logical conclusion, as early as possible.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…