Subhash Sah @Subhas Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16855 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2023 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Saran ====================================================== Subhash Sah @Subhas Sah Son Of Late Kunjbhuwan Sah Resident Of Village- Sidhbaliya, Po- Kathiya Mathiya, Ps- Kangali, Distt- Betiah (West Champaran ) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Union of India Through The Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhijeet Abhigyan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP For the UOI :

Mr. Arsadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NCB Case No. 12 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

3.

Prosecution allegation, in short, is that the 15.900 Kgs of 'charas' was recovered from the possession of the coaccused, 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 27-07-2023, and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16855 of 2024(3) dt.30-04-2024 2/2 has got one criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there is no compliance of Section 50 and subSection (3) of 51-A of the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that there is no compliance of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. 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, accordingly, 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