Patna High Court
Sanjay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the recovery of a commercial quantity of ganja indicated the petitioner’s involvement and risk of re‑offending, thus refusing the bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Yadav, was arrested on 26-05-2025 in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 8 and 20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, with 289 kg of ganja recovered from his house. He pleaded for bail, claiming a clean antecedent, false implication, and non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the quantity seized constitutes a commercial amount, invoking the embargo provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents that bail in such cases is only granted when the court is convinced of the accused’s innocence and low risk of re‑offending. Concluding that the massive seizure indicated probable involvement and a risk of future offences, the judge refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where a commercial quantity of narcotic (289 kg ganja) has been seized.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that he is not likely to commit a similar offence if released.
- Whether alleged non‑compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 20(B)(ii)(c), 37, 42, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- narcotics
- Section 37 embargo
- Section 42
- Section 50
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9651 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAKANTA District- Araria
======================================================
Sanjay Yadav Son of Late Harish Chandra Yadav R/o Village - Laxmipur,
ward no. 01, P.O. - Haldahara Halt, P.S. - kursakanta, District - Araria, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate
Mr. Raghau Raj Pratap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Apurv Harsh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
26.05.2025 in connection with Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 47 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(B) (ii) (c)
of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 289 kg of Ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that it
appears from the FIR that altogether 289 kg of Ganja has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9651 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
recovered from the house of the petitioner. He further submits
that there is non-compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS
Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis
of material available on record, case diary as well as F.S.L
report has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that the recovered contraband is Ganja
which is seven times more than the commercial quantity and the
same is also confirmed by the F.S.L. report that the recovered
contraband is Ganja, so there is embargo under Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
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 Substance Act, 1985,
Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must
have reason to believe that petitioners have 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 and
Ors. reported in (2020) 12 SCC, 122 as well as in the case of
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9651 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
AIR 2022 SC 3444 and Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated
28.03.2023.
8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja recovered
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 Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025
pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special
Judge (NDPS Act), Araria.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…