Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu Chaudhary @ PappuversusThe Union of India through Junior Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner faced a prima facie case under Section 35 NDPS Act and the seized quantity far exceeded the commercial limit, making Section 37 applicable.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, was named in an FIR for the seizure of 275 kg of ganja from a truck, based on statements of co‑accused drivers. He argued that no contraband was found in his possession, that no preliminary test or proper sealing, search and sampling were conducted, and that the NDPS Act's Section 37 should not apply. The NCB countered that call detail records showed frequent communication between the petitioner and the co‑accused, indicating knowledge and participation under Section 35 of the NDPS Act. The Court examined the prima facie evidence of culpable mental state and the large quantity exceeding commercial limits. Concluding that the criteria for anticipatory bail under Section 37 were met, the Court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail and directed that regular bail, if any, be decided by the trial court after surrender.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant anticipatory bail when the accused is not in physical possession of the contraband?
- Whether the call records establish a culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act sufficient to deny anticipatory bail?
- Whether procedural lapses in sealing, search and sampling affect the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29, 35, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 35
- Section 37
- drug trafficking
- seizure
- call detail records
- commercial quantity
- bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4500 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2021 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu Chaudhary @ Pappu, S/o Umanath Chaudhary,
Resident of Village-Jale West Shanker Chowk, P.S.- Jale District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through Junior Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control
Bureau, Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
For the U.O.I./N.C.B. : Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
Mr. Radhika Raman Singh, AC to CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of
India/NCB.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and
apprehending his arrest in connection with C-2 Case No.3 of
2021 arising out of NCB Case No.34 of 2021 registered under
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘N.D.P.S.
Act’)
3. As per FIR, total 275 kg. of ganja in 20 packets
was recovered from the truck bearing Engine No.BRJ 15177.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4500 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner that the name of petitioner transpired on the basis
of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused persons
namely, Prem Kumar and Rajesh Mahto, who are the driver
and co-driver of the truck in issue from where the contraband
was seized. It is submitted that in view of same, it is an
admitted position that no contraband as alleged was
recovered from physical possession of this petitioner and,
therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act appears
not applicable in present case.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that even no
preliminary test was conducted in this matter and merely on
the basis of suspicion, as the seized material was “ganja like
substance”, the entire implication was raised. It is submitted
that still in this matter, the FSL report is awaited. In this
context, it is further submitted that even compliance of golden
principles qua Sealing, Search and Sampling (SSS) also not
appears followed in its true spirit as provisioned under
N.D.P.S. Act in present case. Explaining criminal antecedent,
it is submitted that petitioner found involved in one more
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4500 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
criminal case, which is of Excise, where he is on bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing for NCB/Union of
India while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that from
perusal of the impugned order, it can be gathered safely that
the apprehended co-accused Prem Kumar and Rajesh Mahto
have already convicted by the learned Trial Court and this
petitioner soon before recovery was in regular touch over
phone with three co-accused persons. It is further pointed out
that with Prem Kumar this petitioner found in conversation for
six times. Similarly, with convict Rajesh Mahto, 88 times and
with co-accused Gagan Baitha 32 times, which categorically
suggest culpable mental state of petitioner in view of Section
35 of the N.D.P.S. Act and, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act appears applicable in present case, which
also put a bar as to entertain the prayer of bail of petitioner.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as the petitioner as per call detail reports
was talking frequently with co-accused persons like driver and
co-driver, suggesting prima facie his culpable mental state in
view of Section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act and moreover the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4500 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
recovered quantity is much more than commercial quantity
i.e. 275 kg of ganja, accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail of
petitioner stands rejected.
8. Upon surrender, the learned trial court may
decide the prayer of regular bail of petitioner in accordance
with law without being prejudiced by any of the observation
as made by this Court.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…