Patna High Court
Sunil SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Sunil Sah was arrested after a police raid recovered 40 grams of a smack‑like substance, Nepalese currency and a mobile phone from his residence. He sought bail, asserting his innocence, that the seized quantity is below the commercial threshold under the NDPS Act, and that he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, contending that the substance was found in his possession. The court examined the period of custody, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, the submission of the charge sheet and the low risk of evidence tampering, noting the quantity is below commercial level. Consequently, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions of trial cooperation, non‑tampering and possible cancellation for repeated offences. The order was delivered by Justice Alok Kumar Pandey.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act given the alleged possession of 40 grams of a narcotic substance
- Whether the quantity seized, being below the commercial threshold, warrants denial of bail
- Whether there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses that would preclude bail
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21(b), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- possession of narcotics
- commercial quantity
- criminal antecedent
- evidence tampering
- trial cooperation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87694 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- SIKTI District- Araria
======================================================
Sunil Sah S/o Late Rajendra Sah Resident of village - Bauka Mazrakh, Ward
no. 1, P.S.- Sikty, District - Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sikty P.S. Case No. 158 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of N.D.P.S., Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on 02.09.2025 at about
19:30 hours, on the basis of secret information regarding illegal
sale and smuggling of narcotic substances, a raiding team was
constituted and proceeded to the house of the petitioner (Sunil
Sah). On seeing the police vehicle, the petitioner attempted to
flee but was chased and apprehended. In the presence of
independent witnesses, a personal search of the petitioner was
conducted, during which 40 grams of smack like substance,
Nepalese currency amounting to NPR 43,000 and a mobile
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87694 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
2/4
phone were recovered .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as
alleged in the F.I.R and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. It is submitted that the alleged recovery of 40
grams of smack is much below the commercial quantity as
according to NDPS notification, 250 grams of Smack comes
under the purview of the commercial quantity. The petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case with malicious
intent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no
connection with the alleged occurrence and was returning home
from work at the relevant time. Basically nothing was recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is in
custody since 03.09.2025. Apart from that petitioner having no
criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in the
case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the
prosecution evidence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that there is
alleged recovery of 40 grams Smack like substance from the
possession of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner does not deserve
bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87694 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
3/4
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, keeping in view clean antecedent of
petitioner, charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there
is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence,
argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into
consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner
above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Session Judge-cum-
Special Judge,NDPS Act, Araria in connection with Sikty P.S.
Case No. 158 of 2025, subject to following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or
mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn
the affidavit in bail application.
(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will
remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive
dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or
the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87694 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
4/4
nature of offences in future, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel his bail bond.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Nilmani/-
U T
Checking your session…