Patna High Court
Ram KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court held that given the commercial quantity of narcotics recovered from the petitioner's vehicle and his ownership and control of the vehicle, bail could not be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Kumar, was arrested after 308.71 grams of cannabis (smack) was recovered from the gearbox of his car, which he was driving. He sought regular bail, claiming innocence, lack of criminal antecedent, and alleging that the seizure was not conducted in the presence of independent witnesses as required by the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity seized constituted a commercial amount, the vehicle belonged to the petitioner, and he was in control of it at the time of seizure. The petitioner also argued that procedural lapses in the search should be examined at trial, not at the bail stage. The court, applying the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, held that the circumstances did not warrant bail and rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused when a commercial quantity of narcotics is recovered from a vehicle owned and driven by the accused under the NDPS Act.
- Whether alleged violations of search and seizure procedures can be considered at the bail stage.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(B), 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- search and seizure
- vehicle ownership
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74950 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
======================================================
Ram Kumar, S/O Late Nirala Bhagat, Resident of Vill.- Parashar, P.S-
Raniganj,Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with K.
Hat P.S. Case No. 244 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per allegation, 308.710 grams of smack has
been recovered from gear box of a car bearing Registration No.
BR-38L-7841 belonging to the petitioner who was also driving
the same carrying one traveller who is also a co-accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that co-accused Jyoti Kumari @ Komal
has been enlarged on regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. 78825 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74950 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
2/3
2025. He also submits that charge has also been framed against
the petitioner and the seizure has not been made in presence of
independent witnesses and mandatory provisions of NDPS
regarding search and seizure have not been followed.
5. He further submits that petitioner is in custody
since 15.06.2025 i.e. for about 7 months.
6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one.
8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the
quantity of the recovered contraband is commercial as per the
NDPS Act and the contraband has been recovered from the car
which belongs to the petitioner and he owns the vehicle also.
The Car was also being driven by the petitioner at the time of
recovery of the contraband. Under such facts and circumstances,
it would not be proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. He also
submits that compliance of rules/provisions regarding search
and seizure would be looked into at the stage of trial and not at
this stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74950 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
3/3
9. Hence, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act come into
play and it is not possible for this Court to enlarge the petitioner
on bail.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
stands rejected.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.