Patna High Court
Ajit Yadav @ Ajit Kumar @ Ajeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied and the trial was directed to be expedited within six months.
Summary
Ajit Yadav was arrested in connection with alleged possession of 49.2 litres of corex syrup and 2.5 kg of ganja, offences under sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the seizure was false, that the house is jointly occupied, that mandatory provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and that he has no prior criminal record with only three of seven prosecution witnesses examined. The State opposed bail, contending that the quantity of corex syrup amounted to a commercial quantity, while the ganja was of a small quantity. The High Court, after considering the facts, declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to complete the trial within six months and allowing the petitioner to renew his bail application thereafter. The bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the alleged seizure may be procedurally defective and the trial is not near conclusion.
- Whether the quantity of corex syrup seized constitutes a 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act for the purpose of bail denial.
- Whether non‑compliance with section 50 of the NDPS Act (seizure procedure) affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- seizure procedure
- joint occupation
- trial delay
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82151 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-543 Year-2024 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR District-
Saharsa
======================================================
Ajit Yadav @ Ajit Kumar @ Ajeet Kumar S/o Gopal Yadav R/o Village-
Hindupur, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under section 8 and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the
N.D.P.S. Act and u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, 49.2 litres of wiscof
corex syrup and 2.5 kg. of Ganja were recovered from the house
of the petitioner.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that false recovery of Ganja and corex syrup has been shown
from the possession of this petitioner. However, the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82151 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner which
is in joint occupation of other persons also. Further, there is no
independent witness to the seizure list and compliance of
mandatory provision of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have also
not been done. Further, the petitioner is in custody since
05.12.2024 with no criminal antecedent and the stage of the case
also indicates that till date only three out of seven prosecution
witnesses have been examined as such there is no likelihood of
conclusion of trial in near future.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposes the grant of
bail on the pretext that the offence involves commercial quantity
of corex syrup. However, the Ganja is a little over small
quantity but less than commercial quantity.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering that the trial has proceeded
and three out of seven prosecution witnesses have already been
examined and summons have been issued upon other witnesses,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this
stage. However, the learned trial court is directed to proceed
with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same preferably
within a period of six months, failing which the petitioner shall
be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82151 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail stands
rejected.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…