Dismissed¶28

Amit Kumar Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Aug 2025CR. MISC./1119/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act bail rejected; Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 37 NDPS Act; Section 35 culpable mental state; 24 kg ganja commercial quantity; Nepal-to-India car consignment; Swift Dezire BR11K-2202; custody since 31.10.2024; investigation complete; charge-sheet filed; charge framed 25.03.2025; three prosecution witnesses; trial to conclude within nine months; Article 21 speedy trial; Jogbani PS Case 216/2024 Araria; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No.1119 of 2025; Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected for the present; however, the learned trial court was directed to conclude the trial preferably within nine (9) months from receipt/production of a copy of the order. ¶28

Amit Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail prayer rejected for the present; however, the learned trial court was directed to conclude the trial preferably within nine (9) months from receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act involving alleged possession of 24 kg of ganja (a commercial quantity) recovered while he was travelling by car from Nepal to India. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Prayer for bail rejected for the present because commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession, the charge was already framed on 25.03.2025 and only three prosecution witnesses remain to be examined during the trial.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Considering the petitioner's custody period and that the number of prosecution witnesses is only three (3), the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within nine (9) months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.1119 of 2025 (oral order dated 04-08-2025, Chandra Shekhar Jha, J): Bail application of Amit Kumar Paswan, in custody since 31.10.2024 in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No. 216 of 2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) NDPS Act for alleged possession of 24 kg of ganja allegedly carried from Nepal in a Swift Dezire car (Regn. No. BR11K-2202), was rejected. The court noted that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession; investigation was complete, the charge-sheet filed and charge framed on 25.03.2025 with only three prosecution witnesses remaining; the State relied on the rigorous provision of Section 37 NDPS Act and submitted that this was not a case of delayed trial defeating the Article 21 right of speedy trial. The trial court was nevertheless directed to conclude the trial preferably within nine months from receipt/production of a copy of the order, having regard to the custody period and the small number of witnesses.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1119 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2024 Thana- JOGBANI District- Araria

¶3

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

¶4

Amit Kumar Paswan Son of Pradeep Paswan village- Dumaria, Ward no. 10, Ps- Raniganj, Dist- Araria

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

7 04-08-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶13

petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jogbani P.S.

¶15

Case No. 216 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the ‘NDPS Act’).

¶16

The accused/petitioner is named in the First Information Report and is in custody since 31.10.2024.

¶17

Allegation against the petitioner is to have in possession of 24 kg. of Ganja, while he was coming in Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. BR11K-2202 from Nepal to India.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶19

of the petitioner that recovery, as alleged, not appears to be made from conscious physical possession of this petitioner. It is

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1119 of 2025(7) dt.04-08-2025 2/3

¶21

submitted that after dropping the owner of the vehicle somewhere in Nepal, the petitioner was returning and was not aware about the alleged consignment of contraband i.e. 24 kgs. Ganja. It is pointed out that in want of knowledge, it can be safely said that petitioner, who is a man of clean antecedent, was not under culpable mental state as defined under Section 35 of NDPS Act for having possession of commercial quantity of contraband.

¶22

Traveling further, it is submitted that petitioner remains in custody since 31.10.2024 and there is almost no progress in trial.

¶23

While concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, where charge-sheet has been submitted, and as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶24

Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner, submitted that this is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband/Ganja, where section 37 of NDPS Act suggest a rigorous provision. It is pointed out that it is not a case of prolonged incarceration, on the basis of which, it can be said that the present is the case of delayed trial, prima facie defeating the fundamental right of speedy trial to petitioner available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1119 of 2025(7) dt.04-08-2025 3/3

¶26

is submitted that FSL report suggests that recovered contraband was Ganja and, moreover, in this matter charge was also framed by the learned trial court on 25.03.2025, where as per report, only three charge-sheet witnesses to be examined.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid, as commercial quantity of

¶28

contraband was recovered from possession of the petitioner, where only three prosecution witnesses to be examined during the trial, where charge already framed on 25.03.2025, accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith for the present.

¶29

Considering the custody period of the petitioner and

¶30

number of prosecution witnesses which is only three (3), learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within nine (9) months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶31

Rajeev/-

¶32

U T

¶33

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

Amit Kumar Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahdev Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Brahmachari Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sujit Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Krishan Kumar Mehta @ Krishan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar