Patna High Court

SHATRUDHAN KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Since the seized narcotic quantity is below commercial quantity and the petitioner has no prior record, bail is warranted under the NDPS Act.

Summary

Shatrudhan Kumar was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, where 65.870 grams of cannabis (smack) was seized. The petitioner claimed false implication, had no prior criminal record, and no contraband was found in his possession. The prosecution argued the charges, but the court noted that the quantity seized was below the commercial threshold and that the statutory conditions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied. Considering these facts, the court decided to grant bail, imposing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and conditions regarding family surety and regular court appearances. The bail order was issued subject to cancellation if the petitioner defaults on two consecutive appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the seized narcotic quantity is below commercial quantity.
Whether the statutory requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled to deny bail.
Whether the petitioner’s lack of prior record and absence of contraband in his possession justify bail.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
narcotics
commercial quantity
criminal procedure
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91818 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1268 Year-2025 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 SHATRUDHAN KUMAR S/o- Dinesh Ray R/v- Rustampur W.No-17, Ps-
                 Rustampur Dist- Vaishali
                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Ravi Kant Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   20-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Town

                   Hajipur P.S. Case No. 1268 of 2025, instituted for the offences

                   under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short, is that total 65.870 gram

                   smack has been recovered in this case.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

                   Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Petitioner is in

                   custody since 16.10.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. There

                   is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the

                   petitioner. No incriminating material has been recovered from

                   the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no

                   concern with the alleged recovery. The recovered contraband is
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91818 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     below commercial quantity, and hence, Section 37 of the

                     N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable in the present case. There is no

                     compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the 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.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case, recovered contraband being less than the

                     commercial quantity as also the period of custody undergone by

                     the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the

                     petitioner.

                                   7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing

                     bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two

                     sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court

                     below/concerned Court in connection with Town Hajipur P.S.

                     Case No. 1268 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

                                   (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of

                     the family of the petitioner.

                                   (II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date

                     fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two

                     consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the

                     bail bonds of the petitioner.


                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…