Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3391/2026rejected

Aslam v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-25Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3391 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2025 Thana- KISHANGAANJ RAIL P.S. DistrictKatihar ====================================================== Aslam S/O Farid Bux R/O Khagra, PS - Kishanganj, Distt- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that 204.73 grams of brown sugar has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of contraband made from the petitioner is less than commercial quantity and there is no independent witness to the seizure list and the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. The petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2025 with no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3391 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the recovery from the petitioner is very near to commercial quantity which is 204.73 gram of brown sugar and only charge-sheet has been submitted as of now and further, the FSL report also confirms the narcotic.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the recovery of contraband is close to commercial quantity and the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2025, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Kishanganj Rail P.S. Case No.54 of 2025.

7. However, if substantial progress is not made in the case within reasonable frame of time, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T