Patna High Court
Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail is denied because the seized quantity exceeds the commercial threshold, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the petitioners failed to establish grounds for release.
Summary
The petitioners, Pappu Bhagat and Rupesh Kumar, were arrested in an NDPS case after police recovered a total of 45 kg of ganja from two vehicles. They filed bail applications asserting innocence, lack of knowledge of the contraband, and non‑compliance with mandatory procedures under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and Section 103 of the BNSS. The State opposed, contending that the quantity exceeds the commercial threshold, thereby attracting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and rendering the offences serious. The Court, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, held that the petitioners failed to make a case for bail and that Section 37 directly applies. Accordingly, the bail pleas were dismissed and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when mandatory procedures under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act are not complied with
- Whether the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies due to the commercial quantity of ganja seized
- Whether the seriousness of the offence justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (Control) Act — s. 103
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 37, 42, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- procedural compliance
- drug trafficking
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 47976 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2025 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Pappu Bhagat S/o Shri Ram Bhagat @ Sri Ram Bhagat R/o Village- Naya
Tola Bajitpur, ward No 45, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69851 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2025 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Rupesh Kumar S/o Mantun Rai @ Mantun Ray Resident of Village-
Matihani, Ward No.- 03, P.S.- Matihani, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 47976 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69851 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad Ali, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Both the aforesaid applications arise out of the
same NDPS Case No.1 of 2025, arising out of Bachhwara P.S.
Case No. 07 of 2025, registered under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(c) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 47976 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
the NDPS Act. Therefore, both the aforesaid applications have
been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
order.
3. As per prosecution case, the police has recovered
three bundles of Ganja weighing 45 Kg. (15 Kg. in each bundle)
from the dickey of vehicle bearing Regd. No. BR01HY4851 and
Ganja weighing 45 Kg. (15 Kg. in each bundle) from the dickey
of vehicle bearing Regd. No.BR01DU7758.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in
the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. Nothing
incriminating has been recovered from the conscious/physical
possession of the petitioners. He further submits that in the
entire investigation, not an iota of evidence has come showing
the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence. The
petitioners were only present in the vehicle, in question, and was
not aware of the presence of the alleged contraband in the same.
The petitioners are in custody since 07.01.2025 and have no
criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further
laid much emphasis on the fact that the mandatory procedure as
prescribed under Section 42 & 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not
been followed in this case and, therefore, the Petitioners are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 47976 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
entitled to the benefit available in the event such mandatory
procedure of section 42 & 50 is not followed and, hence, the
Petitioners should be enlarged on bail on any terms and
conditions deemed fit and proper by this court. There is also
non-compliance of Section 103 of the B.N.S.S.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners, stating
that the offence alleged against the petitioners are serious in
nature. Learned APP further submits that the quantity of
recovered contraband is above the threshold of commercial
quantity and, hence, rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. is
attracted in the present case.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned
counsels appearing for the both sides and on a careful
examination of the materials on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the learned counsel for the Petitioners have
failed to make out a case for the release of the petitioners on
bail. Moreover, considering the quantity of contraband Ganja
seized, i.e. total 45 Kg., which is more than the commercial
quantity, it appears that the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act would be directly applicable to the facts of the present case.
In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to release
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 47976 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
the Petitioner on bail at this juncture.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners
are rejected with a direction to the learned court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…