Patna High Court
Noor Mohammad SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner as the seized narcotics were below commercial quantity and the circumstances did not warrant continued detention.
Summary
Noor Mohammad was arrested in connection with a case alleging possession of narcotic drugs, liquor and two motorcycles at his residence. The prosecution alleged seizure of 120 capsules of SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS, 408 capsules of AS-SPA-PRO, 3,480 tablets of NITRAVET-10, and 50.1 litres of liquor, as well as two motorcycles claimed to be stolen. The petitioner contended that the contraband was recovered from a joint family house, that he had no conscious possession, and that the quantity was below the commercial threshold, rendering Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Considering the low quantity of drugs, the petitioner’s custody period, and the lack of incriminating material in his possession, the Court granted bail subject to monetary sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the seized narcotic quantity is below commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
- Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the present case.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act precludes bail.
- Whether possession of contraband in a joint family house can be imputed to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 317(2), 317(5)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(b), 37, 42, 50
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug possession
- commercial quantity
- criminal procedure
- contraband
- joint family house
- Section 37
- Section 42
- Section 50
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83500 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2025 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Noor Mohammad Sah S/o- Zakir Hussain Resident of village-Sangrampur
Ward No- 06 PS-Sonbarsa Distt- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Bhuwan Jayant, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeeta Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand Tiwari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ayush Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Nityanand Tiwari, learned APP for the State and
perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025, instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is
recovery of 120 capsules of SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS of
50 mg each, 408 capsules of AS-SPA-PRO of 50 mg each and
3480 tablets of NITRAVET-10 of 10 mg each were found and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83500 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
50.1 liters of liquor was recovered from the back side of his
house. It is further alleged that two stolen motorcycles have
been recovered from his house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No
incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submits that the alleged recovery has been recovered from
the joint house of the petitioner where other family members
also reside. It is further submitted that the motorcycles are not
stolen rather the same has been registered on the name of the
father of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since
28.07.2025 and has got two criminal antecedents in which he is
on bail. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and has
filed a counter affidavit in the matter. As per paragraph no. 6 of
the counter affidavit, learned APP for the State has stated that
120 capsules of SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS of 50 mg each
along with 408 capsules of AS-SPA-PRO of 50 mg each
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83500 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
contains total 26.4 gm of Tramadol and 3480 tablets of
NITRAVET-10 of 10 mg each contains 34.8 gm of Nitrazepam.
It is further submitted in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that
the seized contraband is below commercial quantity.
6. In view of the above, learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the recovered contraband is below
the commercial quantity and, hence, Section 37 of the NDPS
Act is not applicable in the present case.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, the recovered contraband being below the
commercial quantity and the period of custody undergone by the
petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case
No. 226 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of
the family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial and shall not remain absent on two consecutive
dates without sufficient cause.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83500 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
(III) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
or the witnesses during the trial.
(IV) Petitioner shall not commit offence of similar
nature in future.
If any of the above conditions are violated, the Trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…