Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the seized contraband exceeds the commercial quantity, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Kumar sought anticipatory bail after police raided a shop and seized 16 bottles of codeine‑containing cough syrup, 100 white ink correction pens and 600 g of ganja. He contended he had no possession, the shop did not belong to him, and that the prosecution had not complied with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The State argued that the seized contraband exceeded the commercial quantity, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hira Singh (2020) 20 SCC 272 that neutral substances are counted in determining commercial quantity. The Court examined the facts, noted the quantity was above the commercial threshold, and applied Section 37, thereby refusing to grant anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the seized narcotic and associated neutral substances exceed the commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
- Whether neutral substances such as ink pens must be included in the calculation of commercial quantity for NDPS purposes.
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(A), 21(c), 37, 42, 50, 8m
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- codeine
- ganja
- neutral substance
- Section 37
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54453 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2025 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/O Bhuvaneshwar Mahto Resident Of Village- Jaynagar, Ward
No 9, P.S.- Sonbarsa, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Union of India Patna, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Sonbarsa P.S.
Case No. 139 of 2025, registered under Sections 8m, 20(b)(ii)
(A) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that police on a
tip-of, raided the shop of the petitioner and on search, there is
recovery of total 16 bottles of cough syrup weighing 100 ml
each containing codeine phosphate, 100 pieces of white ink
correction pen and 600 grams of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54453 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has got no
concern with the alleged recovery of the articles. It is further
submitted that the shop does not belong to the petitioner from
where the alleged recovery has been made. The petitioner has
got two criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of
Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the Union of India have 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. Learned A.P.P.
has further relied upon a case of Hon’ble Supreme Court since
reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272 (Hira Singh and Another
versus Union of India and Another) in which the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that in case of seizure of mixture of narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substance with one or more neutral
substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be
excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual
content by way of offending drug while determining the “small
or commercial quantity” of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substance.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54453 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
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 anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…