Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10772 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2022 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== PRAVEEN KUMAR Son of Sri Vishwanath Chaudhary Resident of VillageJagadishpur, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Sahay Jamuar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18(C), 18(B), 24 (b) (ii) and 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Allegedly, petitioner is said to have run medicine shop without having license.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He is a social worker. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10772 of 2023(2) dt.25-04-2023 2/2 submitted that the alleged medical shop does not belong to the petitioner. The alleged shop neither rented nor owned by the petitioner. He further submits that on the basis of prosecution report from Inspector of Drugs Muzaffarpur-3, the Special Court has taken cognizance u/s 27 (b) (iii) & 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 and Amendment Act 2008 against the petitioner vide order dated 24.08.2022 passed by 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetic Act) Muzaffarpur. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T