Allowed¶18

Nawsad Alam @ Nausad Alam v. The State of Bihar

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act – Regular bail – Commercial quantity recovery

Patna HC1 Sept 2025CR. MISC./37529/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act bail; commercial quantity ganja recovery (55 kg); hut behind petitioner's house; land belonging to 'gotias'; conscious possession; animus and corpus; judicial custody since 05.12.2024; no criminal antecedent; bail bond Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra; Bheldi P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37529 of 2025; decided 01-09-2025 by Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail in connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024 upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra. ¶18

Nawsad Alam @ Nausad Alam Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in Bheldi P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024, registered under sections 21(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, notwithstanding recovery of a commercial quantity (55 kg ganja-like substance) from a hut behind his house.

¶12

Court's answer

Bail granted: as per the FIR, the recovery was made from a hut admittedly situated in an open place, and the petitioner specifically asserted that the land on which the hut stands does not belong to him but to his 'gotias'; on this basis the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In determining possession, the Court took into consideration both animus and corpus.

¶21

Key takeaways

Mere allegation of recovery of a commercial quantity, in the absence of proof of conscious possession, will not by itself suffice to establish possession.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act — Regular bail — Commercial quantity recovery — Conscious possession. Patna High Court (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.) enlarged Nawsad Alam @ Nausad Alam on regular bail in Bheldi P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024 (Ss. 21(b)(ii)(c) & 29, NDPS Act), where 55 kg of 'ganja'-like substance was allegedly recovered from beneath the ground of a hut behind the petitioner's house. Although the recovery was of commercial quantity, the Court noted that, as per the FIR, the hut stood in an open place on land the petitioner asserted belonged to his 'gotias' and not to him; accordingly it held that mere allegation of recovery of commercial quantity, without proof of conscious possession, does not by itself establish possession, possession requiring both animus and corpus. Bail ordered on a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties before the Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37529 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2024 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

Nawsad Alam @ Nausad Alam S/O Md. Mustafa R/O Village- Bheldi, P.SBheldi, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Divya Bharti, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 01-09-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶12

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 21(b) (ii) (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

¶13

3. The case of the prosecution is that, from a hut situated behind the house of the petitioner, altogether 55 K.G. ‘ ganja ’ like substance was recovered from beneath the ground.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It has been submitted by the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37529 of 2025(3) dt.01-09-2025 2/3

¶16

learned counsel for the petitioner is that the hut, in question, is not situated adjacent to the back of the house of the petitioner’s house rather it is located at a considerable distance therefrom. It is further submitted that the land on which the said hut, is joint family land and does not fall within the share or possession of the petitioner, but is in fact under the share and possession of his ‘ gotias ’. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.12.2024 having no criminal antecedent.

¶17

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail submitting that the commercial quantity has been recovered from the hut.

¶18

6. In any view of the matter, as per the FIR, the recovery has been made from a hut which is admittedly situated in an open place and the petitioner has specifically asserted that the land on which the said hut stands does not belong to him but to his ‘ gotias ’, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In such circumstance, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024. on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra.

¶19

7. Needless to say that while determining possession,

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37529 of 2025(3) dt.01-09-2025 3/3

¶21

this Court has taken into consideration both animus and corpus. Mere allegation of recovery of commercial quantity, in absence of proof of conscious possession, will not by itself suffice to establish possession.

¶22

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶23

Jagdish/-

¶24

U T

Nawsad Alam @ Nausad Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawsad Alam @ Nausad Alam 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

Rajesh Kumar @ Lelha @ Babloo Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajan Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Sah @ Munna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Sah @ Sanjay Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Rai @ Shambhu Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj @ Suraj Prasad @ Surat Prasad @ Surat Kumar Vs The State of Bihar