Patna High Court
Kamlesh Singh BhoktaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied because the seized contraband was of commercial quantity and was recovered from the petitioner's house.
Summary
The petitioner, Kamlesh Singh Bhokta, applied for bail in a case under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act, alleging that 76.9 kg of poppy straw was recovered from his mud house. He claimed false implication and highlighted that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the large, commercial quantity of the seized narcotics and the fact that they were found at the petitioner's residence. The Court, after considering these facts, refused to grant bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial. The Court further allowed the petitioner to renew his bail application if no substantial progress is made within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act given the commercial quantity of narcotics recovered from his residence
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 18, 20, 22
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- commercial quantity
- drug trafficking
- trial expediting
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76940 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2025 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya
======================================================
Kamlesh Singh Bhokta S/O Janki Singh R/O Vill.- Pakriya, P.S.- Dhangai,
Dist.- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Rina Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the
NDPS Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that
76.900 kgs. of Doda (Poppy Straw) is said to have been
recovered from the wodden roof of the mud house of the
petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this
case showing recovery of 76.900 kgs of Poppy Straw from his
mud house. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Birju
Yadav has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76940 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.63053 of 2025 on the ground that the recovery was made
from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since
06.07.2025, with no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has
been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail
petition on the ground that the seized contraband is more than
of commercial quantity and the same has been recovered from
the house of the petitioner.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the quantity of seizure and the place
of recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
and in case no substantial progress is being made within six
months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…