Dismissed¶20

Md. Kursed @ Khursid v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Jan 2026CR. MISC./83466/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court bail rejection NDPS Section 37 commercial quantity Eskuf cough syrup codeine phosphate Nitrazepam Jogbani Araria BNS 2023 Sections 126(2) 115(2) 303(2) 109(1) 3(5) Arms Act Section 27 custody since 16.10.2025 FIR 26.05.2025 criminal antecedents NDPS Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 Mohit Aggarwal AIR 2022 SC 3444 Ajay Kumar Singh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 Rajesh Kumar Verma J dismissed

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail in NDPS cases where recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. ¶14

Md. Kursed @ Khursid Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody in Jogbani P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025 involving recovery of narcotic/psychotropic substances, should be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the restrictions on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act where commercial quantity recovery is alleged. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Grant of bail in NDPS cases where recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Under the Section 37 NDPS regime, before granting bail the court must have reason to believe that the petitioner has not committed the offence and that, in the event of release, he would not commit a similar offence.

¶16

Key takeaways

Recovery of a huge quantity of contraband does not justify a finding that the petitioner had no knowledge of the narcotic, and there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence in the event of release; the Section 37 gateway was therefore not satisfied.ratio¶18
On the facts and circumstances, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025, and the bail prayer was refused.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refusal under Section 37 NDPS Act - Patna High Court (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J., order dated 19-01-2026 in Cr. Misc. No.83466 of 2025) declined to enlarge Md. Kursed @ Khursid on bail in Jogbani P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025 (F.I.R. dated 26.05.2025) for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 109(1) and 3(5) BNS, 2023 and Section 27 Arms Act, where recovery comprised 1454 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup, 4200 Nitrazepam tablets and cash; petitioner in custody since 16.10.2025 and prosecution alleged two prior NDPS cases; recovery of huge quantity of contraband did not establish lack of knowledge and no material showed he would not reoffend; relying on State of Kerala v. Rajesh, NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal and UOI v. Ajay Kumar Singh, prayer refused.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83466 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2025 Thana- JOGBANI District- Araria

¶3

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

¶4

Md. Kursed @ Khursid S/O Nizam @ Md. Nazam Resident of village - Amouna, Ward no.- 20, P.S - Jogbani, District - Araria

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶6

3 19-01-2026

¶7

Heard Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶8

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 16.10.2025 in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 26.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶9

Recovery is of 1454 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup (Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup), Nitrazepam Tablets IP 10 mg total 4200 tablets and Indian currency total Rs. 17,000/- and Nepali currency of Rs. 8,965/-.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of confessional statement of the

¶11

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83466 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026 2/3

¶12

co-accused, Umar Farooq and except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He further submits that it appears from the seizure list that the recovery has been made from shop and house of the co-accused. He further submits that there is non-compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

¶13

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that upon search 1454 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup (Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup), Nitrazepam Tablets IP 10 mg total 4200 tablets and Indian currency total Rs. 17,000/- and Nepali currency of Rs. 8,965/were recovered and the apprehended co-accused person has disclosed that the petitioner was also involved in the present crime in question. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one and both the cases pertains to NDPS matter.

¶14

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

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83466 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026 3/3

¶16

have reason to believe that petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.

¶17

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 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.

¶18

The recovery of huge quantity of contraband 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.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge NDPS Act, Araria.

¶20

Prayer is refused.

¶21

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶22

Vanisha/- U T

Md. Kursed @ Khursid v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Kursed @ Khursid 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

Akash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dilkhush Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ghutar Yadav @ Abhinandan Yadav @ Nandan Kumar @ Nandan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ramsogarth Rai @ Ramsogarath Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Karan Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Gupteshwar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar