Patna High Court

Sanjeev Kumar Mahto @ Sanjeev MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Bail is denied as the contraband exceeds commercial quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Mahto, applied for bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act where he was alleged to have been found in possession of 497.77 grams of 'smack' recovered from a police search that yielded a total of 1.424 kg. The petitioner claimed innocence, argued that the charge sheet was filed without a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report, and that there was no material recovered from his conscious possession, nor compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, contending that the quantity of contraband exceeded the commercial threshold, invoking the bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court examined the statutory provisions and the facts, noting the recovery of a commercial quantity and the statutory embargo on bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to bail under the circumstances.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when the quantity of narcotics exceeds the commercial quantity as per Section 37.
Whether the absence of a forensic science laboratory report and non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act affect the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21(c), 22(c), 29, 37, 42, 50, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
commercial quantity
Section 37
forensic report
Section 42
Section 50

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84613 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- RAUTARA District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjeev Kumar Mahto @ Sanjeev Mahto S/O Manoj Mahto @ Manoj Prasad
                 Mahto R/o Musapur, P.S.- Korha, Distt.- Katihar

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Dewanand Tiwari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail in N.D.P.S. Case No. 88 of

                   2025, arising out of G.R. No. 3244/2025, Rautara P.S. case No.

                   88 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c),

                   21(c), 22(c) and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

                               3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that on a search

                   made by the police total 1.424 kg smack was recovered out of

                   which 497.77 gram smack was recovered from the petitioner.

                               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 11.06.2025 and

                   has got one criminal antecedent.                 Charge-sheet has           been
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84613 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of

                     witnesses alleged against the petitioner.            Learned counsel

                     further submits charge-sheet has been submitted without F.S.L.

                     report. No incriminating material has been recovered from the

                     conscious possession of the petitioner. There is no compliance

                     of Sections 42 and 50 of 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. 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.

                                   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.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Pankaj/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…