Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9354 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2022 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== PANKAJ KUMAR Son of Lal Bahadur Paswan Resident of VillageSahbajpur, P.S.- Pipra (Punpun), District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Setu Prateek For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 15-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Beur P.S. case No. 15 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c) & 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. As per FIR, prosecution case relates to recovery of total 65.500 kg Narcotic substance like Ganja from the house of the co-accused namely, Dipak Kumar and this petitioner is alleged to be arrested on spot while he was weighing and packing the ganja like substance in small packets. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery of narcotic substance rather he was only staff of Kirana shop of co-accused Dipak

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9354 of 2023(3) dt.15-05-2023 2/2 Kumar due to this the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and languishing in judicial custody since 7.1.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner was arrested on spot with the alleged recovery of narcotic substance like ganja i.e. 65.5 kg which comes within the purview of commercial quantity as per the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that the witnesses of the prosecution have also supported this case.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the the trial within stipulated time (one year) as mentioned in status report.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T