Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69383 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- MOUZAHIDPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/O Bihari Lal Sah R/O Vill.- Aliganj, P.S.- Babarganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026 Heard Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 08.01.2024 in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 07.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 21 (c) and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985.

3. According to prosecution case, 300 gm of brown sugar like substance was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and 200 gm of brown sugar like substance was recovered from the possession of co-accused Dayanand Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has a clean antecedent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69383 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026 2/3 implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R that altogether 300 gm brown sugar like substance recovered from the possession of the petitioner and 200 gm of the brown sugar was recovered from the possession of co-accused Dayanand Prasad. Learned counsel further submits that there is noncompliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S Act.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that altogether 500 gm of brown sugar was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and other accused person and the recovery quantity is more than commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

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 Substance Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that petitioners have 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 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69383 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026 3/3 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.

8. The recovery of huge quantity of contraband recovered 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. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur .

10. Prayer is refused.

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