Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mantu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was denied because the quantum of narcotics recovered and the petitioner’s prior similar criminal antecedent justified refusal of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Mantu Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21, 22(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging recovery of about 2000 ampules of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride. The prosecution alleged that the seized narcotics indicated a serious offence, and the petitioner had a prior criminal antecedent of a similar nature. The petitioner’s counsel contended that he was falsely implicated and had been in custody since 14 April 2026. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the large quantum of drugs and the petitioner’s antecedent. The Court, considering both the seriousness of the offence and the prior record, declined to grant bail and dismissed the application, while noting that the order was limited to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when a large quantity of narcotics has been seized
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of a similar nature warrants denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • drug trafficking
  • prior criminal antecedent
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43633 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2026 Thana- Chitragupta Nagar District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Mantu Kumar Son of Manoj Singh Resident of Village- Purvi Shahpur
                 Mohanpur Kachhuara, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Patna.

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Khushi Awadh, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-07-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Chitragupta Nagar P.S. Case No. 112 of 2026 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 21, 22(c), 25 and 29 of

                   the NDPS Act.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, there is recovery of

                   about 2000 ampules of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride IP (silent)

                   injection.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

                   case. The petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2026 having one

                   criminal antecedent also.

                                 5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43633 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
                                                       2/2




                     prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the quantum of recovery and the

                     criminal antecedent of the petitioner which is of similar nature,

                     I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

                                  8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made

                     herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail

                     application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at

                     any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express

                     any opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                          (Sandeep Kumar, J)

P. Kumar

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.