Patna High Court
Murad @ Md. MuradversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted because the charge was framed without the mandatory forensic report, outweighing the embargo provision.
Summary
Murad was arrested on 28 October 2024 in Kishanganj for alleged offences under Sections 8 and 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, with 460.8 g of brown sugar, a mobile phone and a weighing machine seized. He applied for bail after a prior bail denial, arguing that he has a clean antecedent and that the charge sheet was framed without the mandatory forensic laboratory report required under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution contended that the quantity seized exceeds the commercial threshold, invoking the embargo on bail under Section 37, and noted that the trial had already commenced with two witnesses examined. The High Court noted the procedural defect of framing charges without the forensic report and, despite the commercial quantity, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The order directed that bail bonds be accepted without delay for verification purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted despite the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the quantity seized is commercial.
- Whether the failure to produce a forensic laboratory report as mandated by Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act invalidates the framing of charges and warrants bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and cooperation conditions justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 37, 42, 50, 8
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- commercial quantity
- forensic laboratory report
- procedural lapse
- embargo
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74596 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- GALGALIYA District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Murad @ Md. Murad S/o Noor Mohammad Resident of Churli, P.S.-
Kurlikot, District- Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
28.10.2024 in Galgalia P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, F.I.R. dated
27.10.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 21
(c)of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 460.8 gm of brown sugar, one
mobile phone and one silver color weight machine from the
possession of the petitioner. Earlier the bail petitioner was
rejected vide order dated 22.03.2025 in Cr.Misc. No. 14917 of
2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74596 of 2025(5) dt.23-03-2026
2/3
implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is
non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections 42 and
50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He further submits that the police after
investigation submitted the charge sheet on 12.01.2025 and
charge has been framed against the petitioner on 23.04.2025
without the F.S.L report and the petitioner is in custody since
28.10.2024.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the recovered contraband is more than the
commercial quantity hence, there is embargo under Section 37
of the N.D.P.S Act for grant of bail to the petitioner and apart
from that trial has begun and out of nine charge sheet witnesses,
two witnesses have been examined.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that charge has been framed against the petitioner
without the F.S.L report, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Session Judge-cum-Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Kishanganj in connection with Galgalia P.S. Case
No. 84 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74596 of 2025(5) dt.23-03-2026
3/3
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…