Patna High Court
Sujeet Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle used for the commercial quantity seizure established a culpable mental state under the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar Sharma, was named in an FIR for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, based on the recovery of 299.32 grams of smokeless tobacco (smack) and 1189 litres of Wiscof syrup containing codeine. The prosecution alleged that the commercial quantity of narcotics was recovered from a vehicle registered in the petitioner's name, invoking Sections 35 and 37 of the NDPS Act to deny bail. The petitioner’s counsel argued that his name was linked only through co‑accused and that no direct evidence of his involvement existed, noting that other co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the vehicle ownership and the commercial nature of the seizure as indicative of culpable mental state. The Court, after considering the statutory provisions and the facts, rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 35 of the NDPS Act concerning the culpable mental state of the petitioner?
- Does ownership of a vehicle from which a commercial quantity of narcotics is recovered justify denial of anticipatory bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
- Can anticipatory bail be granted when the petitioner’s alleged involvement is based solely on association with co‑accused?
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(c), 22(c), 25, 29, 35, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- anticipatory bail
- commercial quantity
- vehicle ownership
- culpable mental state
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58565 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2025 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar Sharma S/O Dilip Sharma R/O Vinodpur, P.S.- Katihar Nagar,
Distt.- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.NK Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Katihar Nagar P.S.
Case No. 81 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections
8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per case of prosecution total of 299.32 grams
of smack was recovered from the possession of different co-
accused persons along with 1189 liters of Wiscof Syrup having
one of the constituent as “codeine”.
4. It is submitted by Mr. N.K. Agrawal learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the name of
petitioner disclosed on the basis of apprehended co-accused
person and save and except suspicion nothing transpired against
this petitioner during investigation who is a man of clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58565 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
2/2
antecedent. It is submitted that other apprehended co-accused
persons has already granted bail by this Court and other learned
co-ordinate Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 50126 of
2025 dated 11.09.2025 and Cr. Misc. No. 22374 of 2025
dated 01.09.2025.
5 Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that total recovered quantity of smack appears
commercial in nature which recovered from the vehicle which is
registered in the name of this petitioner and therefore his
involvement with alleged recovery cannot be over looked
particularly, in view of Section 35 of NDPS Act qua culpable
mental state of the petitioner. It is submitted that rigors of
Section 37 of NDPS Act also put bar to grant bail in such a case
of recovery.
6. Taking note of fact as petitioner is owner of the
vehicle from where commercial quantity of smack alleged to be
recovered, accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the
above-named petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…