Patna High Court
Chandradeep Mahto @ Degree MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court refused bail, holding that the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics and the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act preclude the grant of bail.
Summary
Chandradeep Mahto, arrested on 7 January 2025, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 20(b) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. An earlier application for anticipatory bail had been rejected by a coordinate bench of the Patna High Court in 2018. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that contraband exceeding commercial quantity was recovered, the petitioner had been an absconder for about seven years, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes an embargo on bail in such circumstances. The petitioner argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the presence of a commercial quantity of narcotics and the risk of re‑offending preclude bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was refused.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to deny bail when commercial quantity of narcotics is involved
- Whether the petitioner is likely to commit a similar offence if released on bail
- The effect of the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail on the present bail application
- The relevance of alleged non‑compliance of mandatory NDPS provisions to the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b), 37, 82, 83, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- anticipatory bail
- narcotics
- embargo
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83803 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Vaishali
======================================================
Chandradeep Mahto @ Degree Mahto Son of Late Kaltu Mahto @ Kalpu
Mahto Resident of village Mile, P.S.- Bidupur, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gunjesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector Excise, Mobile Force, Vaishali, Hajipur
Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivjee Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard Mr.Shivjee Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
07.01.2025 in connection with Case No. C2A-3 of 2018
(Bidupur P.S.) registered for the offence punishable under
Sections Sections 20(b) and 8 (c) of N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 03.05.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
24283 of 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83803 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the
NDPS, Act.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the basis of the
material available on the record and the case diary, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was
rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the
year 2018 and it appears from the FIR that the recovery has
been made from the house of the petitioner and from 2018 to till
date on the date of surrender the petitioner was absconder i.e.
about seven years and when process under Sections 82 and 83
was issued against the petitioner then he has surrendered before
the learned Trial Court and apart from the aforesaid, recovered
contraband is more than the commercial quantity. Hence, there
is embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail
to the petitioner.
6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery
of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must
have reason to believe that the petitioner have not committed the
offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83803 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
offence.
7. The issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors Vs. Rajesh &
Ors, reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 as well as in the case of
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs.Mohit Aggarwal reported in
AIR 2022 SC 3444 and recently decided the judgment in the
case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from
possession of the petitioner would not justify that the petitioner
had no knowledge of the narcotic nor there is any material to
substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence
in the event of release.
9. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in connection with Case No. C2A-3 of 2018 (Bidupur
P.S.) pending in the court of learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Vaishali at Hajipur.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…