Patna High Court – Orders
Jagarnath Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 24 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Prakash Singh
Bench: Chandra Prakash Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37287 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Begusarai
======================================================
Jagarnath Sah S/O Late Ram Nath Sah R/O Village- Mirganj Patel Chowk,
Ward no. 31, PS- Town, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 24-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Excise Case No. 173 of
2025 dated 14.05.2025 registered for the offence punishable u/ss
30(a), 30(f) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 321.400 litres of
codeine cough syrup was recovered from the godown of the co-
accused, Ramanand Mahto and 70.500 litres of codeine cough
syrup was recovered from the E-rickshaw and the said vehicle
was being driven by the petitioner who was apprehended by
police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37287 of 2025(3) dt.24-07-2025
2/4
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. The petitioner has been made accused in this case
merely on suspicion. The petitioner has no concern with the said
godown. The petitioner is the driver of the said E-rickshaw but
he has no concern with the alleged recovery. It is further
submitted that the present case comes under the purview of
Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner has no criminal
antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner
is in custody since 14.05.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that the
seized contraband is commercial quantity i.e., 391.900 litres of
codeine cough syrup which was recovered from the godown of
the co-accused person and the E-rickshaw of the petitioner. The
bail application of the co-accused was earlier rejected by this
court vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
37325/2025. The petitioner had no any valid authorization for
keeping the same. Learned APP for the State has placed reliance
on the judgment in the case of Hira Singh and Anr. Vs. Union
of India and Anr, (2020)20 Supreme Court Cases 272 of
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “weight of entire materials/
mixture along with neutral material is to be considered for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37287 of 2025(3) dt.24-07-2025
3/4
ascertainment of whether the quantity is “small quantity” or
“commercial quantity”. It is further submitted that codeine is
mentioned in the Entry No. 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The act of
the petitioner amounts to clear violation of section 8 of the
N.D.P.S. Act as it clearly prohibits possession of narcotic
substance except medical and scientific purposes.
6. As per Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the two
conditions are that the Court should be satisfied with :-
(i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) He is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail.
7. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the
bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. The
Court is of the opinion that the parameters of bail available
under Section 37 of the Act have not satisfied in the facts of the
instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 891 has held that “The length of the period of his
custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the
trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that
can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37287 of 2025(3) dt.24-07-2025
4/4
respondent under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.”
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the material available on the record, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same
is rejected in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025,
pending in the Court of learned Exclusive Special Excise Judge-
II, Begusarai.
9. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the
trial and conclude the same within 9 months.
10. The application stands rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Gautam/-
U T