Patna High Court
Devendra Mandal @ Devendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted as the seized quantity was below commercial quantity and the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with, rendering Section 37 inapplicable.
Summary
The petitioner, Devendra Mandal, was arrested on 9 October 2025 in connection with a case involving the alleged possession of 15 grams of smack and related items, charged under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He filed a bail petition claiming that the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold and that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, thus arguing that Section 37’s embargo on bail should not apply. The State opposed bail, noting a similar pending case against the petitioner, though the petitioner was already on bail in that matter. The Court examined the facts, noted the quantity was indeed below commercial quantity and that procedural lapses existed, and consequently granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented by the District and Additional Sessions Judge of Katihar.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when the seized narcotic quantity is less than the commercial quantity.
- Whether the mandatory procedural provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with, affecting the applicability of Section 37 embargo on bail.
- Whether the existence of another pending case against the petitioner influences the grant of bail in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 22(b), 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- commercial quantity
- mandatory provisions
- Section 37
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79453 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar
======================================================
Devendra Mandal @ Devendra Kumar S/o Lakhan Mandal R/o Tingharia,
P.S.- Kursela, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Mandal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard Mr.Arun Kumar Mandal,learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.Madan Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
09.10.2025 in connection with Kursela P.S. Case No. 163 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 09.08.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c),21(b),22(b) of N.D.P.S.Act.
3. Recovery is of 15 Gram of Smack.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the
present case. It appears from the FIR as well as the seizure list
that altogether 14 pieces of matchbox were recovered from the
house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that altogether 15 Gm of contraband was recovered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79453 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
from the house of the petitioner, one Realme company mobile,
one Lava company mobile and one Nokiya Company mobile
were also recovered from possession of the petitioner. Further
submits that there is non-compliance of the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act and 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
and the petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner carries one more case of similar
nature other than the present one but fairly submits that the
petitioner is on bail in the said case, as mentioned in para-3 of
the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, recovered
contraband is less than the commercial quantity and there is
non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act,
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 learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar in connection with
Kursela P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025, with the following
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79453 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
conditions:-
(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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her 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)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…