Patna High Court
Bhola SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Bail cannot be granted as Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars it in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics.
Summary
The petitioner, Bhola Singh, was arrested after a police raid on his residence recovered 22.8 kg of ganja and Rs 4,90,800 in cash. Singh contended that he was not present during the raid, the premises were open to all, his signature was obtained on the seizure list without proper procedure, and no forensic test was conducted on the seized material. The State argued that the large, commercial quantity of ganja was found in Singh’s conscious possession, invoking the bar on bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Court examined the seriousness of the offence, the commercial quantity involved, and the statutory prohibition on bail in such cases. Concluding that the conditions for bail were not met, the Court rejected the bail petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotic is recovered.
- Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail in such circumstances.
- Whether alleged procedural irregularities (absence of the accused during seizure, lack of forensic testing, signature on seizure list) affect the bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)ii(c), 25, 37
Subjects
- bail
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
- Section 37
- commercial quantity
- seizure
- forensic testing
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83757 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2025 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Bhola Singh Son of Late Dharam Raj Singh R/o Village/ Mohalla- Jethwar,
P.S.- Tarari, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Tarari P.S. Case No. 142 of 2025, registered for
the offences under Sections 20(b)ii(c) and 25 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information,
a raid was conducted on the house of the petitioner and recovery
of 9 kg 200 gm of ganja was made from the shop in the house
of the petitioner and further recovery of 13 kg 600 gm of ganja
was made from the house of the petitioner. In this manner,
recovery of 22 kg 800 gm of ganja and Rs. 4,90,800/- cash has
been made.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83757 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was not even
present in the house when the raid was conducted and when he
came there after almost three hours, he was arrested showing
recovery from his house. The recovery shown from the old
house of the petitioner is a place which is open and accessible to
all. The petitioner has been residing in his new house along with
other inmates and recovery of ganja was shown in absence of
petitioner and later on his signature was obtained in the seizure
list which is not permissible in law. The petitioner cannot be
fastened with liability of recovery from a joint house. The police
did not test the contraband and declared it to be ganja without
testing or report of forensic lab. The petitioner is in custody
since 04.08.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted. The
petitioner is having clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP
submits that commercial quantity of ganja has been recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the nature of allegation and
recovery of commercial quantity of ganja from the petitioner,
and considering the bar of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83757 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, I am not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…