Dindayal Sao @ Dindayal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29648 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2023 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya ====================================================== Dindayal Sao @ Dindayal Kumar S/O Teni Saw R/O Village- Dangai, P.SDhangai, Barachatti, Distt.- Gaya, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar,learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 11.02.2025, in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 108 of 2023, FIR dated 22.09.2023 registered for the offence under Sections 18/20/22 of the NDPS Act.

3. Recovery is of 130.350 kg of Doda.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29648 of 2025(3) dt.20-06-2025 2/3 petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner but the petitioner was not present at his house.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of the material available on the record, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that altogether 130.350 kilograms of Doda has been recovered from the house of the petitioner and it appears from the FIR that huge quantity of Doda was recovered so there is embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner.

6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that the petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.

7. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors Vs. Rajesh & 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 recently decided the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29648 of 2025(3) dt.20-06-2025 3/3 judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.

8. The recovery of huge quantity of Doda from possession of the petitioner 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.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 108 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Gaya.

10. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T