The Patna High Court rejected the bail application of a petitioner accused of нарко dotyczące (ganja) possession under the NDPS Act, ruling that the quantity recovered exceeded commercial limits and the Section 37 embargo bars bail, despite alleged procedural lapses.
Prayer for bail rejected; direction to court below to expedite trial.
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.61522 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2023 Thana- JOGBANI District- Araria
======================================================
Ram Pravesh Kumar Yadav Son of surya Narayan Yadav Village- kewla Ward No. 2, PS and PO- Bhimpur, Dist- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 14-11-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61522 of 2024(4) dt.14-11-2024 2/3
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is not the owner of the alleged vehicle nor the same belongs to his family members. The petitioner has no concern with the seized Ganja. There is no chemical report available to prove the seized article to be Ganja. The charge-sheet has been submitted in this case but, without F.S.L. report/chemical report. The petitioner is the driver of the alleged car but, was not aware of the contents of the material being loaded in the car. There is no compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also not been complied in this case as the Investigating Officer is not authorized officer for investigating the case under the N.D.P.S. Act. There is a noncompliance of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 07.09.2023 without any rhymes or reason.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61522 of 2024(4) dt.14-11-2024 3/3
of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
rishi/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is maintainable when the quantity of narcotics recovered exceeds commercial limits under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Whether procedural lapses under Sections 42, 50, 57, and 100 of the NDPS Act and CrPC disentitle the court from rejecting bail.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Pravesh Kumar Yadav
The State of Bihar
Rudra Prakash Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
