Patna High Court
Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Chandra Bhushan YadavversusThe Union of India through the D.R.I., Regional Unit,
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court refused bail, holding that the recovery of commercial quantity of ganja and the lack of evidence to show the petitioner’s innocence preclude the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Chandra Bhushan Singh, arrested on 3 July 2023, was charged in a special NDPS case for allegedly possessing 63.1 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity. He sought bail, claiming innocence and that he had bought the narcotic from a third‑party, Lal Babu Yadav. The Union of India opposed bail, citing the large quantity and the embargo provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, supported by a forensic report. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in commercial‑quantity NDPS cases and noted that the trial was still pending, with two witnesses yet to be examined. Finding no material to demonstrate the petitioner’s lack of knowledge or risk of re‑offending, the court refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of narcotic under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of innocence and purchase from a third party is sufficient to overcome the presumption of guilt.
- Whether the embargo provision under Section 37 applies to the present facts.
- Whether the stage of the trial justifies the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37 embargo
- narcotics
- trial delay
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45439 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2023 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna
======================================================
Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Chandra Bhushan Yadav S/o Krishna Singh
Resident of village- Hardaypur Itahi Tola Haridaypur, PS- Bihiya Dist-
Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through the D.R.I., Regional Unit, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Sr. S.C.
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Jr. S.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the Union of India.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
03.07.2023 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.
04/2024, arising out of DRI/LZU/PRU/718(II)/ENQ-18/2023
DRI Patna Unit Case No. 08/2023-24 dated 02.07.2023,
registered for the offence punishable under Sections u/s
8(c)/20(b)(ii)(C) /2025,
3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was
rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order
dated 24.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16599 of 2024.
4. As per allegation in the FIR is that altogether
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45439 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
63.100 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the vehicle in
question.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
had purchased the alleged Ganja from one Lal Babu Yadav. The
same is registered in the name of Lal Babu Yadav. Petitioner is
in custody since 03.07.2023 and the trial has not concluded as
yet.
6. Learned counsel for the D.R.I., on the other hand,
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the recovered contraband is more than the
commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act and FSL report also confirms that the recovered
contraband is Ganja.
7. 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 petitioner has not committed the
offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar
offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45439 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
8. 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
AIR 2022 SC 3444 and Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated
28.03.2023.
9. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja 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.
10. As far as trial is concerned, vide order dated
10.09.2025, a report was called with regard to stage of the trial.
Report dated 17.09.2025, learned Trial Court reveals that out of
seven complaint witnesses, five witnesses have been examined
and the case is pending for examination of two independent
witnesses.
11. Considering the nature of allegation in the FIR,
and report of learned Trial court, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.
04/2024, arising out of DRI/LZU/PRU/718(II)/ENQ-18/2023
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45439 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
DRI Patna Unit Case No. 08/2023-24, pending in the Court of
learned Exclusive Special Court (N.D.P.S.), Patna.
12. Prayer is refused.
13. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…