Patna High Court
Souptik Sarkar @ Sauptik SarkarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied because the seized quantity exceeded the commercial threshold, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Souptik Sarkar, applied for bail in a case where police seized 2,550 bottles of Phensedyl syrup from a Mahindra pickup, alleging offences under Sections 30(a) & 41(1) of the Excise Prohibition and Excise Act and Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed he was merely the vehicle owner, had no knowledge of the contraband, no prior criminal record, and that no contraband was found in his conscious possession. The State opposed bail, arguing that the quantity seized exceeded the commercial quantity threshold, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hira Singh (2020) 20 SCC 272 that neutral substances must be counted in determining commercial quantity. The Court examined the statutory provisions and the precedent, concluding that the large quantity triggered the statutory bar on bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the seized narcotic quantity exceeds the commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the inclusion of neutral substances in the seized mixture affects the determination of commercial quantity for bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of possession, clean record, and claim of ignorance merit the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(c), 22, 29, 37, 42, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- drug seizure
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- neutral substance
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81026 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-568 Year-2021 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Souptik Sarkar @ Sauptik Sarkar Son of Sujit Sarkar R/o - 14/1 Old Police
Line Road, Gorabazar, P.S. - Berhmpore, Dist. - Murshidabad, West Bengal -
742101. At present C/o Prasanta Kumar Das, R/o Village - Steamerghat, P.S. -
Jiaganj, Dist. - Murshidabad, West Bengal - 742123.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mohania
PS Case No. 568 of 2021 instituted for the offences under
Sections 30(a) & 41(1) of the Excise Prohibition and Excise Act
and Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22 & 29 of the NDPS Act. Earlier vide
order dated 24.01.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42830 of 2024,
anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.
3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that the during
vehicle checking, police intercepted one Mahinda pickup and on
search, there is recovery of 2550 pieces of Phensedyl syrup each
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81026 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
containing 100 mL.
4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2025 and
has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of
tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. It is next
submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. Name of the petitioner has surfaced
in this case as being owner of the vehicle in question and he had
no knowledge regarding illicit contraband loaded in the vehicle.
Learned counsel further submits that there is no compliance of
Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Police after completion of
investigation has submitted charge sheet under Sections 8(c),
21(c), 22 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned A.P.P.
submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial
quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act. Learned A.P.P. has further relied upon a case of Hon’ble
Supreme Court since reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272 (Hira
Singh and Another versus Union of India and Another) in
which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in case of seizure of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81026 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance with one or
more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is
not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with
actual content by way of offending drug while determining the
“small or commercial quantity” of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substance.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial
quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected.
8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…