Lov Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80589 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-841 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Lov Kumar S/o Gajendra Yadav @ Gajendra Kumar R/o Village - Bairwa, Ward No. 7, P.S - Madhepura, District - Madepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 841 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 600 gram smack from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged recovery has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80589 of 2025(2) dt.11-12-2025 2/2 made from an under-construction building having no windows and doors. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of smack. The petitioner is in custody since 11.08.2025 and has got one criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. 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 and the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.
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.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T