Dismissed¶23

Manoj Sardar v. The State of Bihar

Bail – NDPS Act – Sections 21(c), 22(c), 25, 29

Patna HC14 Jul 2026CR. MISC./45742/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J, 14-07-2026, Criminal Miscellaneous No.45742 of 2026: bail application under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 25, 29 NDPS Act (Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026, Supaul; NDPS Case No. 12 of 2026) concerning recovery of 255.880 litres of codeine-containing cough syrup; commercial quantity and Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act embargo; Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020) 20 SCC 272 cited by the State; bail rejected, trial to be concluded expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: considering the facts and circumstances of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with the embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶22

Manoj Sardar Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45742 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2026 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul

¶3

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

¶4

Manoj Sardar S/o Soganand Sardar @ Sognand Sardar R/o Village - Shivnagar, Ward No. 9, P.S - Triveniganj, District - Supaul

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 14-07-2026

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in NDPS Case No. 12 of 2026, Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026 instituted for the offences under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶15

Prosecution allegation, in short, is that total 255.880 litres of codeine containing cough syrup has been recovered in this case.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2026 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. He further

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45742 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026 2/3

¶18

submits nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather the recovery has been made from the house. Learned counsel further submits the co-accused, namely, Bajrang Kumar has already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31776 of 2026.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that the alleged recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned A.P.P. has further relied upon a case of Hon’ble Supreme Court since reported in ( 2020) 20 SCC 272 (Hira Singh and Another versus Union of India and Another) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in case of seizure of mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by way of offending drug while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45742 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026 3/3

¶22

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.

¶23

The prayer is rejected.

¶24

Learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial

¶25

in expeditious manner without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournment.

¶26

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶27

Alok Verma/-

¶28

U T

Manoj Sardar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Sardar 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

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dilanand Das Vs The State Of Bihar

Gulshan Kumar @ Gaurav @ Gulshan Kumar Jaiswal Vs The State of Bihar

Kunal Kumar @ Kunal Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rajo Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Akshay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar