This is an oral order refusing bail to a petitioner accused of possessing a commercial quantity of opium. The court held that recovery of such quantity does not satisfy the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail.
Prayer for bail 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.7678 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-537 Year-2017 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya
======================================================
Raju Ram Son Of Baga Ram Resident Of Village- Khatiyasni, P.S.Dangiyawas District- Jodhpur (RAJASTHAN)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Mishra, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER
3 25-07-2022
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 8,18 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Recovery is of 25 Kg of opium.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per FIR 25 Kg of opium has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and he is in custody since 28.12.2017.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7678 of 2022(3) dt.25-07-2022 2/3
Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the FSL Report confirms that the recovered article is opium which is the intoxicating and addictive narcotic drug.
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.
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 .
The recovery of huge quantity of Opium 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 NDPS Case No.07/2019/02/2018 arising out of Sherghati Excise Case No.437 of 2017 pending in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7678 of 2022(3) dt.25-07-2022 3/3
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gaya.
Prayer is refused.
Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner accused of possessing a commercial quantity of opium.
Whether the recovery of 25 kg of opium justifies refusal of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala and Ors Vs Rajesh & OrsReferred¶17
State of Kerala and Ors Vs Rajesh & Ors, 2020(12) SCC 122 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJU RAM SON OF BAGA RAM
THE STATE OF BIHAR
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
