Patna High Court
Subhan @ Subhan Miyan @ Md. SubhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Subhan Miyan, was charged under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for allegedly selling and smuggling 10.2 kg of ganja, which was recovered from a bag on a motorcycle he was riding. He contended that the recovery was false, that the drugs were not in his conscious possession, and that the quantity was intermediate, not commercial, while noting he had prior criminal records unrelated to the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, citing the quantum of the seizure, his antecedents, and a prior denial of bail to a similarly situated co‑accused by a coordinate bench. The Patna High Court, considering these factors and the earlier denial, refused bail, directing the trial court to complete the trial within six months, after which the petitioner may renew his bail application. The order emphasizes expeditious trial conduct in NDPS cases.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the NDPS Act given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the circumstances of alleged possession.
- Whether the prior denial of bail to a co‑accused influences the decision on the petitioner's bail application.
- Whether the claim of lack of conscious possession is sufficient to merit bail in an NDPS case.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(B), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- quantity of narcotics
- conscious possession
- criminal antecedents
- expeditious trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68397 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2025 Thana- BARDAHA District- Araria
======================================================
Subhan @ Subhan Miyan @ Md. Subhan S/O Late Khatru R/o Village-
Pipraghat (Pipra) Tappu Tola, P.S.- Jogbani, District-Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Madhav Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
7 24-02-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(B) of the
N.D.P.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation
against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused
persons was involved in sale and smuggling of ganja and there
is recovery of 10.2 kg of ganja from the place of occurrence.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that false recovery of total of 10.2 kg of
ganja is said to be made from a bag kept on motorcycle on
which the petitioner and co-accused were sitting, however, no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68397 of 2025(7) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
recovery has been made from the personal or conscious
possession of the petitioner and the recovery is of intermediate
quantity and quite less than commercial quantity. The petitioner
is in custody since 10.06.2025 and although he has criminal
antecedents, but no antecedent is of one under NDPS Act.
Further, the charges have been framed on 11.12.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of
bail on the ground of quantum of recovery, his criminal
antecedents and also the fact that the prayer for bail of similarly
situated co-accused, namely Usman @ Phecha @ Phejja has
already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.78612 of
2025, with direction to the Court to expedite the trial and
conclude the same at the earliest.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the fact that prayer for bail of
similarly situated co-accused has already been rejected by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is not inclined to
grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby
rejected in connection with Bardaha P.S. Case No.39 of 2025.
7. However, the charges having been framed on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68397 of 2025(7) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
11.12.2025, the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed
expeditiously with the trial and conclude the same, preferably,
within a period of six months, failing which the petitioner shall
be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.