Om Prakash Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49036 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2015 Thana -WEST CHAMPARAN GRP CASE DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Om Prakash Kumar Gupta Son of Late Durga Sao, Resident of Village - Pantoka, P.S. - Ramgarwaha, District -East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Poonam Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Smt. Pronati Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Narkatiaganj Rail P.S. Case No. 17/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 20(b) II (c), 21(C), 22/27 (A) of the NDPS Act. Allegedly, the petitioner and co-accused were caught moving at Narkatiaganj Railway Station in suspicious condition and after search 9 packets of charas weighing 4.500 kgm and two mobiles were recovered from possession of the petitioner whereas from possession of another co-accused a hat having electronic device and a mobile was recovered.

Submission is of false implication and that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49036 of 2015 (3) dt.30-01-2016 2/2 informant in his further statement has changed his version and has stated that from possession of the petitioner 5 packets of charas kept in a bag was recovered and 4 packets charas was recovered from the bag of co-accused, other independent witnesses have stated that the petitioner runs a grocery shop and was not involved in such activity and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 12.08.2015 deserves sympathetic consideration. It is also submitted that the mobile details were also not traced out. Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that 4.500gm charas was recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rakhi U T