Ram Nath Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1611 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2024 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ram Nath Das Son of Ramanand Das Resident of Village- Chaksiray, PSUjiyarpur, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act and Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3.

As per prosecution case, there is recovery of 1.300 Kg ganja from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner was not arrested on the spot.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1611 of 2025(2) dt.17-01-2025 2/2 the petitioner. The alleged contraband recovered is less than commercial quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Other co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10-01-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 80081 of 2024.

5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and fervently submitted that since the recovery is made from the house of the petitioner, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected.

7.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same would be considered by the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T