Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjib Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5712 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2024 Thana- DANDKHORA District- Katihar ====================================================== Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjib Kumar S/o- Luro Yadav R/o- Salarpur, PS- Parbatta, Distt- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dandkhora PS Case No. 83 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 20 & 22 of the NDPS Act.

3.

Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 31.110 kg ganja from the possession of accused persons, including the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 07-09-2024 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5712 of 2025(2) dt.12-02-2025 2/2 witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has no concern with the recovered contraband.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.

The prayer is rejected.

8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

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