Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court was not satisfied that the petitioner was not guilty nor that he would not commit a similar offence if released.
Summary
Rohit Kumar was arrested on 8 January 2024 in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, alleged to have possessed 300 grams of a brown sugar‑like substance, while a co‑accused possessed an additional 200 grams. The petitioner sought bail, arguing a clean antecedent and alleged non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution contended that the total 500 grams constituted a commercial quantity, invoking the embargo provision of Section 37 which restricts bail unless the court is convinced of the accused's innocence and that he will not re‑offend. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents, including State of Kerala v. Rajesh and Narcotic Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, emphasizing the stringent bail standards for commercial‑quantity cases. Finding no material to suggest the petitioner lacked knowledge of the narcotics or would not commit a similar offence if released, the court refused the bail application. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the alleged quantity exceeds the commercial threshold.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and alleged procedural lapses under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 22, 37, 42, 50
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- drug possession
- Bhagalpur
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69383 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- MOUZAHIDPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Rohit Kumar S/O Bihari Lal Sah R/O Vill.- Aliganj, P.S.- Babarganj, Dist.-
Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 19-03-2026 Heard Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
08.01.2024 in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 21 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 07.01.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 21 (c) and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act 1985.
3. According to prosecution case, 300 gm of brown
sugar like substance was recovered from the possession of the
petitioner and 200 gm of brown sugar like substance was
recovered from the possession of co-accused Dayanand Kumar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has a clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69383 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R that
altogether 300 gm brown sugar like substance recovered from
the possession of the petitioner and 200 gm of the brown sugar
was recovered from the possession of co-accused Dayanand
Prasad. Learned counsel further submits that there is non-
compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that altogether 500 gm of brown sugar was
recovered from the possession of the petitioner and other
accused person and the recovery quantity is more than
commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act.
6. 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 petitioners have 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 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69383 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
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.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of contraband
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.
9. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024
pending in the Court of learned learned District and Sessions
Judge, Bhagalpur .
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…