Petitioner sought bail in an NDPS case involving recovery of commercial quantity of charas. The court held that commercial recovery creates an embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act and refused bail, directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail prayer refused; trial directed to be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16684 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-579 Year-2020 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur
======================================================
RUPESH SHARMA Son of late Nagendra Thakur Resident of Village - Pahsaul, P.S.- Katra, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER
4 12-10-2022
Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of starting of Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/20/22 of the N.D.P.S Act.
As per the prosecution case, a raid was conducted on the secret information at the house of Surendra Prasad which was given on rent to Gaurav Kumar. Recovery of 166 gms Charas was made from the possession of Prabhash Sharma and recovery of 750 gms and 760 gms along with Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16684 of 2022(4) dt.12-10-2022 2/3
14 lakhs, ornaments and mobile phones were recovered from the room of Gaurav Kumar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submits that it appears from the FIR as well as seizure list that 01 Kg 510 Gms of Charas has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2020.
Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the recovered contraband is more than the commercial quantity so there is embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail to the petitioner. Further submits that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one.
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 petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16684 of 2022(4) dt.12-10-2022 3/3
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 .
The recovery of huge quantity of Charas from possession of the petitioner 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.
Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S.Case No.579 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Muzaffarpur.
Prayer is refused.
The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the
trial.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a narcotics case involving commercial quantity of charas despite embargoes under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the recovery of huge quantity of contraband negates the requirement to believe the petitioner has no knowledge or propensity to repeat the offence.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial in pending narcotics cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala and Ors Vs. Rajesh & OrsReferred¶20
2020(12) SCC 122 · Who else cites this
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit AggarwalReferred¶20
AIR 2022 SC 3444 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rupesh Sharma
The State of Bihar
Rajesh Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
