Patna High Court
Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations against him doubtful and the recovered quantity below the commercial threshold.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 8, 18(c) and 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for allegedly transporting poppy husk. The prosecution alleged recovery of 116.7 kg of poppy husk, of which 29 kg was recovered from bags carried by the petitioner and additional quantities from a vehicle owned by his father. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, had no knowledge of the contraband, and that the recovered quantity from his possession was below the commercial threshold of 50 kg. The State opposed bail, asserting the recovery was made from the petitioner and co‑accused. Considering the doubtful nature of the allegation, the petitioner’s clean record, the grant of bail to a co‑accused, and the fact that the recovered amount from him was below commercial quantity, the court ordered his release on bail with specified conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act given the alleged possession of poppy husk.
- Whether the quantity recovered from the petitioner falls below the commercial quantity threshold for denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of incriminating evidence warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 480(3)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 18(c), 20(B)(ii)(C), 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- poppy husk
- drug trafficking
- false implication
- commercial quantity
- surety
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75789 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA RAIL P.S. District- Gaya
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar S/o Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Kumar R/o -
Muzafarpur ward no. 10, P.S - Ben, District - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Adv.
Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Rail Gaya P.S. Case No. 228 of 2025, registered
for the offences under Sections 8, 18(c), 20(B)(ii)(C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and other co-
accused persons were apprehended carrying 116.700 Kg of
Doda (poppy husk). From the bags being carried by the
petitioner, recovery of 29 kg of poppy husk was made. Further
recovery of 32.05 kg of poppy husk was made from the vehicle
owned by the father of this petitioner. From the trolley bags
being carried by the co-accused persons, recovery of 32.20 kg
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75789 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
and 32.6 kg of poppy husk respectively, was made from other
co-accused persons.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
in this case and he is innocent. Nothing incriminating has been
recovered from person or possession of this petitioner. Even
from the FIR it is apparent that the other co-accused persons
belonging to the State of Punjab took the vehicle of the
petitioner on hire and the petitioner has not knowledge about the
nature of article being carried by the co-accused persons. The
conscious possession of the contraband was all time with the
two co-accused persons who were to travel from Gaya to
Ludhiana. Learned counsel further submits that moreover even
if it is considered that the recovery has been made from the
petitioner, weight of the recovery has been shown along with the
bag and recovery from possession of this petitioner is 29 kg and
even if the recovery from the vehicle is considered, the same is
again with the bag and it will come below the commercial
quantity of 50 kg. Learned counsel further submits that co-
accused Mandeep Kumar has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 146 of 2026 though the allegation against him in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75789 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
FIR is that he owned the alleged contraband along with co-
accused Sanjiv Kumar. The petitioner is in custody since
31.07.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted. The petitioner
bears no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP
submits that recovery of 116.7 kg of poppy husk was made from
the petitioner and other co-accused persons.
6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the
doubtful nature of allegation against the petitioner and doubt
over his involvement and also considering his period of custody,
submission of charge sheet and grant of bail to co-accused, the
petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act,
Gaya/concerned court, in connection with /Rail Gaya P.S. Case
No. 228 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under
Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
relative of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75789 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on
each and every date fixed by the court
below, if so required by the learned trial
court.
(iii) In case of absence on three
consecutive dates or in violation of the
terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled
by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…