Rahul Raushan v. The Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7266 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rahul Raushan Son of Sikandar Thakur Resident of Village- Baghari, ward No. 11, P.S.- Sursand, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India New Delhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Adv.
For the U.O.I.
:
None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 10-04-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present, however, no one appears on behalf of the Union of India in spite of the fact that copy has been served to the office of Union of India and the name of counsel for Union of India is also showing in the list but no one present to defend this case.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with C2 Case No. 02 of 2021, arising out of Government Official Complaint P.S. Case No. 33 of 2021, lodged under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.11.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23335 of 2022, in which he has withdrawn the bail application and filed the present criminal miscellaneous for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He submits that the recovery of 125 kg ganja has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7266 of 2024(3) dt.10-04-2024 2/2 been the subject matter of the present case but petitioner is no where involved in the said matter. He has categorically disclosed that the said ganja belongs to other person and only in greed of money of Rs. 5,000/-, he sat over the matter. He further submits that the petitioner is completely innocent. He further submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 14.12.2021. He is relying on the judgment of Ghanso @ Kalo Vs. State of Punjab vide order dated 31.05.2022, CRM-M-20629 of 2022 in which prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has been allowed considering the period of custody.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that quantity of ganja recovered is five times more than the commercial quantity.
5. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and therefore, his bail petition is hereby rejected at present.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) sadique/- U T