Patna High Court
Sintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The bail petition was denied as the court was not convinced that the petitioner was not guilty nor that he would not commit a similar offence if released.
Summary
The petitioner, Sintu Kumar, was arrested on 15 June 2025 in connection with a case involving the alleged possession of 308.710 grams of smack/brown sugar, charged under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He contended that the narcotics were recovered from a vehicle, not from his conscious possession, and that the FIR was fabricated, asserting a clean antecedent. The State opposed bail, arguing that the quantity constituted a commercial amount, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act which restricts bail in such cases. The court examined precedent from the Supreme Court, including State of Kerala v. Rajesh and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, emphasizing the need for a belief that the accused is not guilty and would not reoffend. Concluding that the facts did not demonstrate the petitioner’s innocence or low risk of reoffending, the court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotics is alleged to have been recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of lack of conscious possession and false implication is sufficient to merit bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(B), 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- commercial quantity
- narcotics
- false implication
- conscious possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79315 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
======================================================
Sintu Kumar S/o Suchendra Yadav Residents of Sakra Paharpur, PS- Simri
Bakhtiharpur, District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Fazle Karim, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Md. Fazle Karim, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
15.06.2025, in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 244 of
2023, FIR dated 14.06.2025 registered for the offence under
Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
3. Recovery is of 308.710 grams of Smack/Brown
Sugar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79315 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the
petitioner rather the recovery has been made from vehicle in
question.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on
the basis of the material available on the record, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
altogether 308.710 grams of Smack/Brown Sugar has been
recovered from the vehicle in question and it appears from the
FIR that huge quantity of Ganja was recovered so there is
embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant privilege of
bail to the petitioner.
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the
recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is
circumscribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant
of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that the petitioner
has not committed the offence and in the event of release he
would not commit similar offence.
7. The issue was considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors Vs.
Rajesh & Ors, reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 as well as in the
case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79315 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444 and recently decided the
judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from
possession of the petitioner would not justify that the petitioner
had no knowledge of the narcotic nor there is any material to
substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence
in the event of release.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of
allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 244
of 2023 pending in the court of learned Special judge (N.D.P.S
Act), Purnea.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…