Dismissed¶21

Gunjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Jan 2026CR. MISC./91807/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail rejected; Section 37 NDPS Act embargo; contraband above commercial quantity; 723.67 gram brown sugar (smack) recovery; Sections 8(C), 21(C), 25, 29, 42, 50 NDPS Act; Naugachhia P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025, Thana NAUGACHIA, District Bhagalpur; petitioner Gunjan Kumar in custody since 08.09.2025, no criminal antecedent; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91807 of 2025; Honourable Mr. Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra; order dated 20-01-2026; bail prayer rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the 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. ¶20

Gunjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91807 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- NAUGACHIA District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

Gunjan Kumar Son of Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Sanjay Sharma R/o Village - Bhavanipur, Sahu Tola Naugachhia, Distt - Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 20-01-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in Naugachhia P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 8(C) 21(C) , 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶16

Prosecution allegation, in short, is that the 723.67 gram of brown sugar (smack) has been recovered in this case.

¶17

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 08.09.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits nothing has been recovered from the premises and possession of the petitioner. The provision of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91807 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026 2/2

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to 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.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances 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.

¶21

The prayer is rejected.

¶22

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶23

manish/-

¶24

U T

Gunjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Yogendra Yadav @ Pandit Vs The State of Bihar

Subodh Yadav @ Sanjeev Yadav @ Sanjiv Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Anwar Abbasi Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh mahto Vs The State of Bihar