Ashutosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP For the UOI : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 20-04-2026

¶13

Heard Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, learned counsel

¶14

for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.

¶15

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 17.10.2025 in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 196 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) (ii) (c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

¶16

Recovery is of 89.742 kg of Ganja .

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the allegation in the F.I.R. altogether 89.742 kg of Ganja has been recovered from

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26268 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 2/3

¶19

the scrap shop of one Zakir Khan. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in Harpur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 in which 78.900 kg of Ganja has been recovered and on the basis of the disclosure made by the petitioner in Harpur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 the recovery in the present case has been made.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Union of India as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner carries one criminal antecedent of similar nature other than the present one. He further submits that the recovered contraband is more than the commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶21

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 petitioners have not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.

¶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

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26268 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 3/3

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 196 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Exclusive Special Judge Court No.II, NDPS East Champaran, Motihari.

¶27

Prayer is refused.

¶28

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶29

Vanisha/-

¶30

U T

Ashutosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sandip Kumar @ Jhulan Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Kisan Kumar @ Prabhat Kumar Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

Sishir Kumar @ Shishir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Rehan Vs The State of Bihar

Inglesh Tiwari @ Inglish Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar