Rajeev Kumar v. The Union Of India, Narcotic

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21164 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2016 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictNAWADA ======================================================

1. Rajeev Kumar, son of Ramnandan Paswan, resident of Village- Jethuli P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, Narcotic.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay (Asg) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 14-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 04 of 2016 registered for offences punishable under Section 22 (b)/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The prosecution case as lodged by the Excise Officials along with police officers is that while checking of vehicle, a Ambassador Car was searched and during course of search, 92 Kg Ganja was recovered from the car upon which the petitioner was driving the vehicle and two other persons namely, Munna Ram and Lalita Devi were sitting and accordingly, a seizure list was prepared.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21164 of 2017 (5) dt.14-07-2017 2/2 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and there is no criminal history and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and he had nothing to do with the seized ganja and is a professional driver. He is in custody since 29.10.2016.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the vehicle during course of checking 92 Kg Ganja, which is of a commercial quantity was recovered, hence opposes, the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail and the bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Sudha/- U T