SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 6713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Soni Shrivastava, J
Anish Kumar Rana @ Anish Singh
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6635 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Priya Ranjan
For the Respondents: Arvind Kumar

Bail may be granted in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities if there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the accused, no criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused.

Headnote:The case involves the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, specifically Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 27A, and 29. The petitioner was accused of involvement in a case where 45.3 kg of ganja was recovered from the house of a co-accused. The court noted that no incriminating articles were recovered from the petitioner's car or residence, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The primary issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics, which typically triggers the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court reasoned that since no recovery was made from the conscious possession of the petitioner and a co-accused had already been granted bail, the petitioner is entitled to parity. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and facts regarding the recovery of contraband. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding lack of conscious possession versus the statutory bar for commercial quantities. (Para 5 , 6)
3. grant of bail based on lack of conscious possession, parity, and absence of criminal history. (Para 7)

ORAL ORDER

3 27-02-2026 The instant case being heard on the basis of mentioning slip.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for NCB.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20 (b) (ii) (c), 25, 27 A and 29 of N.D.P.S Act .

4. There is recovery of 45.3 kg ganja from the house of co-accused Chandan Yadav.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No recovery was made from the car in which the petitioner was seated along with other accused persons. On suspicion, the house of petitioner was also searched but no incriminating article was recovered and the alleged recovery was made from house of co-accused Anil Mehta and Chandan Yadav. Petitioner is no way concerned with the contraband that was seized and with no criminal antecedent, he is languishing in custody since 12.02.2025 and the present stage of the case is that the charges have also been framed on 12.12.2025. Co-accused Sobhanand Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 3556 of 2026.

6. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for NCB, however, strongly opposes the grant of bail and has filed a counter affidavit detailing the seizure and opposes on the ground that recovered ganja is of commercial quantity and as such bar of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act shall operate.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that no recovery was made from conscious possession of the petitioner and another co-accused has been granted bail by aforesaid order dated 13.01.2026, coupled with the fact that petitioner has no criminal antecedent, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with NDPS Case No. 16/25/CNR No. BRSU010068882025 arising out of NCB Cr. No. 01 of 2025, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top