Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ritu Kumar @ Rituraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Bail cannot be granted where the contraband exceeds commercial quantity, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Summary

The petitioner, Ritu Kumar, was arrested as the driver of a Hyundai car from which 28.30 kg of ganja was seized, leading to charges under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, claiming innocence, lack of criminal antecedent, and that no incriminating material was found on his person, also asserting non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, contending that the quantity seized exceeds the commercial threshold, invoking the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and noting that bail for co‑accused had previously been denied. The Court examined the statutory provisions and the fact of contraband exceeding commercial quantity, concluding that the bar under Section 37 precludes bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted when the seized narcotic quantity exceeds the commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
  • Whether the procedural requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have been satisfied for granting bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • commercial quantity
  • Section 37
  • drug trafficking
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52551 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- HARPUR District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Ritu Kumar @ Rituraj Kumar S/o Ramchandra Yadav R/o Village- Munshi
                 Bazzar, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Balgovind Sharma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   16-01-2026                        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   APP for the State and perused the case diary.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Harpur

                   P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable

                   under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS

                   Act.

                               3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is

                   recovery of 28.30 Kg of Ganja from a Hyundai car and the

                   petitioner was arrested on spot.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No

                   incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52551 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

                       further submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the

                       alleged recovery of Ganja. The petitioner is driver of that

                       vehicle. The petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2025 and has

                       got no criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Sections

                       42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

                                   5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                       opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned

                       A.P.P. submits that recovered contraband is above the

                       commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the

                       N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that regular bail of other co-

                       accused has been rejected by this Court vide order dated

                       11.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 75668 of 2025.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                       of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial

                       quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.

                       Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                                    7. The prayer is rejected.



                                                                   (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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