Patna High Court
Arun Kumar MehtaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the embargo under Section 37 does not apply and the statutory conditions for denial of bail are not satisfied.
Summary
Arun Kumar Mehta was arrested on 23 June 2025 in connection with an NDPS case (Case No. 68 of 2025) after police recovered 10.08 litres of codeine syrup and other narcotic preparations from his residence. The petitioner pleaded innocence, arguing that the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold and that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, thereby negating the embargo under Section 37. The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting three prior criminal antecedents and noting that the petitioner was already on bail in other pending matters. The court examined the statutory criteria for bail under the NDPS Act and considered the petitioner’s claim of non‑commercial quantity and procedural lapses. Concluding that the statutory embargo did not apply, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, appearance, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies when the seized narcotic quantity is less than commercial quantity.
- Whether non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude bail in the present NDPS case.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 22(c), 25, 29, 37, 42, 50
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- codeine syrup
- commercial quantity
- embargo
- criminal antecedent
- section 37
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79314 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2025 Thana- KUNAULI District- Supaul
======================================================
Arun Kumar Mehta S/o Radheshyam Mehta R/o Village- Kunauli, Ward
No.16, P.S- Kunauli, Dist- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
23.06.2025 in N.D.P.S Case No. 69 of 2025 arising out of
Kunauli P.S. Case No. 68 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 23.06.2025 for
the offences punishable under Sections 21 (c), 22(c), 25 and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 10.08 liters of Codeine Syrup.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. It appears from the FIR that altogether 70 bottles
of ONEREX cought syrup, 28 bottles of WINCEREX-T cought
syrup and 10 bottles of DIALEX-TM-DC each bottles contains
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79314 of 2025(4) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
100 ml each was recovered from the courtyard of the
petitioner’s house. He further submits that there is non-
compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections 42 and 50 of
the N.D.P.S. Act and it appears that the recovered contraband is
less than the commercial quantity. Hence, there is no embargo
under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act for grant of bail to the
petitioner. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted the charge sheet. The petitioner is in custody since
23.06.2025.
5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that recovery has been made from the house of the
petitioner and apart from that the petitioner carries three
criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly
submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that
the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
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 Special
Judge, NDPS, Supaul in connection with Kunauli P.S. Case No.
68 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79314 of 2025(4) dt.31-01-2026
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…