Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11041/2026bail rejected

Nunu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-23Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11041 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul ====================================================== Nunu Devi Wife of Ramu Sharma Resident of Village- Purani Bhaptiyahi, Ward No. 7, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 95 of 2025, arising out of Bhaptiyahi PS Case No. 194 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of total 106 Kg ganja like substance from the courtyard of the petitioner's house.

4. 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 12.09.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11041 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026 2/2 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has no concern with the recovered ganja. It is submitted that recovery is made from the joint house of the petitioner, where other family members also reside. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The prayer is rejected.

8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T