Patna High Court
Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Rai @ Akhileshwar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court refused bail, holding that the recovery of commercial quantity of ganja and the petitioner’s alleged ownership preclude the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Akhilesh Kumar, was arrested on 21‑08‑2025 in connection with an FIR dated 10‑03‑2025 alleging offences under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(b), 22 and 25 of the NDPS Act. A total of 109.38 kg of ganja was recovered from the petitioner’s field, a newly constructed house (held to be joint family property) and a vehicle (not owned by the petitioner). The petitioner pleaded clean antecedents and claimed the FIR was fabricated, arguing non‑compliance of mandatory NDPS provisions. The State contended that the petitioner owned the premises, the quantity exceeded commercial limits, and therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred bail. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the large quantity and ownership concerns justified denial of bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was refused.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when commercial quantity of narcotic is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged ownership of the property and vehicle influences the bail decision.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with in the investigation.
- Whether there is a reasonable belief that the petitioner will not commit a similar offence if released.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 21, 22, 25, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics
- joint family property
- ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6187 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Rai @ Akhileshwar Rai Son of Tilahi Ray R/O
village - Semrahan, P.S.- Rajepur, Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Usha Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-04-2026 Heard Ms.Usha Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Khurshid Anwar, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
21.08.2025 in connection with Rajepur P.S.Case No. 41 of
2025, N.D.P.S., G.R. No. 39 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 10.03.2025
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)
(ii)(c),21(b) 22,25 of N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Recovery is of 109.38 Kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have clean antecedent. The allegation as
alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has
not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Although the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6187 of 2026(5) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
recovery has been made from the newly constructed house of
the petitioner but the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of
the house in question rather the house is joint family property
of the petitioner, apart from that, 41.69 Kg of Ganja was
recovered from the field of the petitioner, 48.6 Kg of Ganja
was recovered from the newly constructed house of the
petitioner and 19.09 Kg of Ganja was recovered from the
vehicle in question. Petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle
in question, apart from the aforesaid, there is non-compliance
of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the basis of the
material available on the record and the case diary, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that altogether 109.38 Kg of Ganja was recovered
from different places and petitioner is owner of the filed as
well as the house in question and the recovered contraband is
more than the commercial quantity, so there is embargo under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act to enlarge the petitioner on bail,
apart from the aforesaid, from a bare perusal of the FIR it
appears that there is compliance of the mandatory provisions
of the NDPS Act.
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6187 of 2026(5) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is
circumscribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant
of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that the
petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of
release he would not commit similar offence.
7. The issue was considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors Vs.
Rajesh & 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 recently decided the
judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar
Singh @ Pappu, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from
possession of the petitioner 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.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and the recovered
contraband is more than the commercial quantity, I am not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with
Rajepur P.S.Case No. 41 of 2025, N.D.P.S., G.R. No. 39 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6187 of 2026(5) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
2025, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, Motihari, East Champaran.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…