Patna High Court
Manoj Rai @ Manoj RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court was not convinced that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the narcotic or would not re‑offend.
Summary
Manoj Rai, arrested on 6 April 2022, is charged under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for the recovery of 370 kg of ganja from five vehicles. He has been in custody for over four years, suffers from HIV/AIDS and type‑2 diabetes, and the trial has progressed slowly with only half the witnesses examined. The petitioner sought bail, citing his health condition and the incomplete trial, but the prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of the narcotic and the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court examined Supreme Court precedents on bail in NDPS cases and found no material to show that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the narcotic or would not re‑offend if released. Consequently, the bail petition was refused, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotic has been seized.
- Whether the petitioner's HIV/AIDS and diabetes constitute sufficient grounds for bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
- Whether there is sufficient evidence to infer that the petitioner had knowledge of the narcotic and would not commit a similar offence if released.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- HIV/AIDS
- health condition
- Section 37
- narcotics
- trial delay
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60058 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2022 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Manoj Rai @ Manoj Ray Son of Vilat Rai Resident of Village- Chandpura
Ward no 5, Raghopur, PS- Raghopur District- Vaishali Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 03-04-2026 Heard Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
06.04.2022, in connection with Jadopur P.S. Case No. 56 of 2022
corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2022, F.I.R. dated
05.04.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
8/20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of 370 Kgs. Of Ganja
from five different vehicles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order
dated 23.06.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56243 of 2022 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60058 of 2025(6) dt.03-04-2026
2/4
thereafter the petitioner again moved before this Court in Cr. Misc.
No. 34901 of 2024 but the same was rejected vide order dated
28.08.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 06.04.2022 and trial is not in progress
and apart from that the petitioner is suffering from HIV. It appears
from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that altogether 370 Kgs. of
Ganja was recovered from the vehicles in question. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a HIV
positive since last 15 years and the trial is not concluded as yet.
6. Vide order dated 22.12.2025 a report was called for
with regard to the stage of the trial. Report dated 05.01.2026 of
the learned Trial Court reveals that out of eight chargesheeted
witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and next date is
fixed for evidence on 08.01.2026 itself.
7. Vide order dated 13.02.2026, a report was also called
for the medical report with regard to the health condition of the
petitioner from the Superintendent of Jail, Gopalganj and it has
submitted a report on 20.02.2026 annexing the report of the
prisoner/petitioner which is reproduced hereinbefore.
“Sir,
With due respect I have to say that UTP
Manoj ray is suffering from HIV AIDS since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60058 of 2025(6) dt.03-04-2026
3/4
2012 (on medication) and also he is suffering
from T2DM. Presently, no any fresh
complaint have been made by prisoner.”
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, on the basis of material available on record, vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
recovered contraband is Ganja which is more than the commercial
quantity so there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act
and apart from that the petitioner carries five more cases in which
one case relates to N.D.P.S matter.
9. 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.
10. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60058 of 2025(6) dt.03-04-2026
4/4
11. 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.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the report of the learned Trial court, the
medical report of the petitioner as well as the recovered
contraband is more than the commercial quantity, I am not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with
Jadopur P.S. Case No. 56 of 2022 corresponding to Sessions Trial
No. 25 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj.
13. Prayer is refused.
14. However, learned Trial court is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…