Patna High Court
Sushil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotics did not satisfy the requirement of Section 37 NDPS Act that the court be convinced of the accused's innocence and non‑reoffending likelihood.
Summary
The petitioner, Sushil Kumar, was arrested on 24‑08‑2025 in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, after 24.55 kg of ganja and 50 g of charas—exceeding commercial quantity—were recovered from his possession. He applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the large quantity of narcotics and the statutory restriction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the court to be convinced that the accused is not likely to commit the offence. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents (State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Narcotic Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh) that set a high threshold for bail in commercial‑quantity cases. Finding no material to show the petitioner’s innocence or that he would not re‑offend, the judge refused bail. The petition for bail was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when commercial quantity of narcotics is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that he is not likely to commit a similar offence or lacks knowledge of the contraband.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- narcotics
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86717 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2025 Thana- BAHADURGANJ District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Sushil Kumar Son of Sahdev Prasad @ Shadev Lal Harijan Resident of
Village- Dohaliya, P.S.- Bahadurganj, District- Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 30-03-2026 Heard Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
24.08.2025 in connection with Bahadurganj P.S. Case No. 372
of 2025, F.I.R. dated 23.08.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8,20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S.Act.
3. Recovery is of 24.550 Kg of Ganja and 50 Gm
Narcotic contraband substance.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation
as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86717 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that altogether 24.550 Kg of Ganja like substance and
50 Gm of Charas was recovered from the pocket of the
petitioner and the recovered contraband is more than the
commercial quantity.
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 has not committed the
offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar
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 commercial quantity of Ganja and
50 Gm of Charas from possession of the petitioner would not
justify that the petitioner had no knowledge of the narcotic nor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86717 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
there is any material to substantiate that the petitioner would not
commit such offence in the event of release.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and the recovered
contraband is more than the commercial quantity, I am not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with
Bahadurganj P.S. Case No. 372 of 2025, pending in the court
of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (NDPS) Act,
Kishanganj.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…