Dismissed

Kamal Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jul 2023CR. MISC./14173/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application in an NDPS case involving recovery of 121.407 Kg of Ganja. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that commercial quantity recovery creates an embargo under Section 37, and the petitioner failed to show lack of knowledge or likelihood of non-offence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail in connection with PS. Case No. 384 of 2022 is refused.

Kamal Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14173 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-384 Year-2022 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar

¶3

======================================================

¶4

KAMAL KUMAR SINGH Son of Abhimanyu Singh Resident of VillageChain Chapra, P.S.- Krishnagarh Saraiya, District- Bhojpur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 24-07-2023

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 03.09.2022 in connection with Buxar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 384 of 2022 (Pre Trial NDPS Case No. BRBU10P0019462022) for the offences punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20(B)/22(C), 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶15

The case relates to recovery of 121.407 Kg. of Ganja .

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that altogether 121.407 Kg. of Ganja was recovered from the vehicle in question. He further

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14173 of 2023(3) dt.24-07-2023 2/3

¶18

submits that it appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been made from the vehicle in question and the petitioner was sitting along with other co-accused persons in the vehicle. He further submits that there is non compliance of Sections 42, 43 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2022.

¶19

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, on the basis of material available on record and case diary, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the F.S.L. report confirms that the recovered contraband is Ganja and the recovery is more than the commercial quantity and hence there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶20

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 petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14173 of 2023(3) dt.24-07-2023 3/3

¶22

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 AIR 2022 SC 3444 and Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated 28.03.2023.

¶23

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.

¶24

Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Buxar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 384 of 2022 (Pre-Trial NDPS Case No. BRBU10P0019462022), pending in the Court of learned In-charge Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Buxar.

¶25

Prayer is refused.

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶27

Ibrar//-

¶28

U T

Kamal Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Krishna Sharma @ Dhimal @ Dhimal Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Imran Khan @ Aryan Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kanhai Kumar @ Sonu Vs The State of Bihar

Fudeni Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar