A bail order that says nothing was recovered from the accused, when the FIR records a kilogram of methamphetamine found in luggage they both admitted owning, is not merely wrong but contrary to the record itself, the Patna High Court has held, cancelling the bail of two accused in a Narcotics Control Bureau case because the Special Judge never applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Patna: The Patna High Court has allowed an application by the Union of India, through the Narcotics Control Bureau, and cancelled the regular bail granted to Sanjeev Sahu and Lallan Das by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Muzaffarpur, holding that the November 11, 2024 order was founded on findings contrary to the record and passed in disregard of the embargo in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Union of India v. Sanjeev Sahu and Another].
Justice Sandeep Kumar, in a judgment delivered on September 8, 2026 after reserving it on July 29, directed both accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, must secure their arrest.
Background of the case
According to the complaint of Sub-Inspector Md. Ramiz Raiza of the NCB, Patna Zonal Unit, a secret information on August 27, 2024 said that Ramakant Das and Sanjeev Sahu were bringing a large quantity of methamphetamine from Dibrugarh by train to Muzaffarpur. A raiding party intercepted both on the flyover near Dharamsala Chowk, and they admitted owning the luggage, which included a carton with an electric pressure cooker. Three packets of suspected methamphetamine, weighing 380, 280 and 340 grams, 1 kg in all, were allegedly found in a specially made cavity in the cooker’s base, in the presence of two independent witnesses. Because of a traffic jam, the search and seizure were carried out at Kanti Police Station.
The two suspects allegedly disclosed that the consignment was meant for Lallan Das. His rented house was searched and 22 packets of suspected heroin were allegedly seized. A case was registered under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and all three men were arrested and remanded on August 28, 2024. On November 11, 2024, the Special Judge granted bail to Sanjeev Sahu and Lallan Das on the grounds that they were not arrested from the spot, nothing was recovered from them, their names were disclosed by the co-accused, they had no criminal antecedent and they had been in custody since August 28, 2024. These allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
What the parties argued
Senior Central Government Counsel Subodh Kumar Jha, appearing with Arbind Kumar and Chandani Kumar for the NCB, argued that the three findings behind the bail order were each contrary to the FIR, the seizure list and the arrest memos. Sanjeev Sahu, he said, was named in the secret information, intercepted with the consignment and formally arrested in the same transaction, while Lallan Das was the named recipient and 22 packets were recovered from his house. He added that 1 kg of methamphetamine is twenty times the commercial quantity, that the order never mentioned Section 37, and that a co-accused, Ramakant Das, had been refused bail on the same footing by a Coordinate Bench on July 28, 2025. He relied on Union of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul, State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Union of India v. Prateek Shukla and Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan.
Advocates Abhyanand, Sumit Kumar and S.M. Sudhanshu, for Sanjeev Sahu, argued that the order was reasoned, that the contraband was recovered from Ramakant Das and not from him, and that the search at a police station about 15 km away from an interception barely 200 metres from the railway police station cast doubt on the recovery. They also argued that bail cannot be cancelled mechanically without supervening circumstances, and that no misuse was alleged. Dr. Bipin Chandel, for Lallan Das, argued that nothing was recovered from him, that he was implicated on suspicion only because he is the father of Ramakant Das, with whom he lives, and that bail was granted on the merits of his own case. They relied on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P.
Annulling a perverse bail order
Relying on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ajwar v. Waseem, the Court separated cancellation of bail for post-grant misconduct, which needs cogent and overwhelming supervening circumstances, from annulment of a bail order that is itself illegal or perverse, which requires no supervening circumstance. It added, from Himanshu Sharma, that bail granted in ignorance of statutory restrictions on the power to grant it, or procured by misrepresentation, may also be cancelled independently of any misuse of liberty. It held that the present application fell in the second category, so the cases cited for the accused, which concern misconduct after release, did not help them.
Findings contrary to the record
The Court found that the first three findings behind the bail order were contrary to the materials the Special Judge claimed to have perused. As to Sanjeev Sahu, the FIR records that he was named in the secret information, intercepted with the co-accused, admitted ownership of the luggage, and that the seizure list bears his signature. It held:
“The finding of the Court below that the opposite party no.1 was not arrested from the spot and that there is no recovery from his possession is, therefore, not merely erroneous, but it is the exact opposite of what the record states.”
Rejecting the argument that the cooker was carried by Ramakant Das, the Court explained that possession under the NDPS Act is conscious possession and may be joint:
“Possession, within the meaning of the NDPS Act, is conscious possession, and may be joint, it is not confined to physical custody on the person of the accused.”
The two men were named together in the secret information, travelled together, were intercepted with common luggage whose ownership both admitted, and the contraband was hidden in a specially made cavity in it. Relying on Rattan Mallik and Md. Nawaz Khan, the Court held that the contraband not being found on the person of the accused does not displace a prima facie case of joint conscious possession or excuse the scrutiny Section 37 requires. Whether he was in conscious possession is a matter for trial.
As to Lallan Das, it held that the recovery from his rented house was a recovery attributable to him which the Special Judge could not have ignored, and that he is also accused under Section 29 of being the intended recipient of a commercial quantity. The finding that the names surfaced only through co-accused was wrong for Sanjeev Sahu, who was named in the secret information, and for Lallan Das the recovery from his own house was independent incriminating material. The Court acknowledged that a Section 67 statement cannot by itself be substantive evidence against a co-accused under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, but held that the prima facie case rests on the interception and recoveries, not on confessions.
Section 37 never applied
The Court called the complete absence of any reference to Section 37 the most fundamental infirmity. With 1 kg of methamphetamine, twenty times the notified commercial quantity, and charges under Sections 22(c) and 29, the twin conditions, namely reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence on bail, are cumulative and mandatory, and no bail could be granted without recording satisfaction on both. The order instead proceeded as if it were an ordinary bail application, and the Court held that such an order in a commercial quantity case is perverse and unsustainable, as held in Rattan Mallik, State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Prateek Shukla and Md. Nawaz Khan. It also noted that Ramakant Das, intercepted along with Sanjeev Sahu, had been refused bail by a Coordinate Bench because the Section 37 parameters were not satisfied.
Directions
The Court set aside the November 11, 2024 order and cancelled the bail and bail bonds of both accused, directing them to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. It directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by its observations, which it said are confined to this application and express no opinion on the merits, and directed that a copy be sent to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur for compliance.
Case Title: Union of India v. Sanjeev Sahu and Another
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 69110 of 2025, arising out of NCB Case No. 09 of 2024 (Crime No. NCB/PZU/V/09/2024)
Bench: Justice Sandeep Kumar, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: September 8, 2026
Appearance: Senior Central Government Counsel Subodh Kumar Jha with Arbind Kumar and Chandani Kumar for the petitioner; Advocates Abhyanand, Sumit Kumar and S.M. Sudhanshu for Opposite Party No. 1; Dr. Bipin Chandel for Opposite Party No. 2