Patna High Court
Neeraj Sahani @ Neeraj Kumar @ Niraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted given the seriousness of the offences, the commercial quantity of narcotics, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Neeraj Sahani, was charged under Sections 25(1‑B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and Sections 8 and 20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 1.190 kg of charas, illegal firearms and live cartridges. He contended that the seizure resulted from an improper search and that he had no conscious possession, further noting that no witness had been examined since charges were framed in 2024. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of narcotics, the presence of firearms, and the petitioner’s six prior criminal convictions. The Court, after weighing the seriousness of the allegations and the evidentiary record, refused to grant bail. It directed the police to expedite the trial and use coercive measures to produce witnesses, many of whom are officials. A copy of the order was to be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur for immediate compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotics, illegal firearms, and multiple prior convictions.
- Whether the alleged improper search and seizure affect the petitioner’s right to bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Arms Act and NDPS Act outweighs the presumption of innocence in bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(B)(ii)(c), 8
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- illegal firearms
- commercial quantity
- criminal antecedents
- search and seizure
- witness production
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72690 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Neeraj Sahani @ Neeraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar son of Bisundev Sahni
Village- Bishunpur Patti PO -Karnaul PS- Sahebganj District -Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms
Act and Section 8/20(B)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per the First Information Report the allegation
is of recovery of 1.190 kg of charas, illegal firearms and live
cartridge from the possession of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
recovery was not made from the conscious possession of the
petitioner and the same has been result of improper search and
seizure made by the police. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2024 and till date not a single
witness has been examined after charges having been framed in
the year 2024 itself.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of
bail on the ground that there is recovery of commercial quantity
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72690 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
of charas, coupled with the firearms and the petitioner has six
criminal antecedents.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the serious nature
of allegations and the recovery of commercial quantity of
narcotics, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to
the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No.335 of
2024.
7. However, the learned Court concerned is directed
to proceed with case expeditiously by using all coercive measures
for appearance of the witnesses as it has been informed that after
framing of charges in the year 2024, the case has not proceeded.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur is also
directed to co-operate at his hand for getting the witnesses
produced before the Court concerned as the case is that of
N.D.P.S. Act and the witnesses are mostly official.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur , through FAX for its
compliance forthwith.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…