Rajulal Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58622 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2015 Thana -JADOPUR District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Rajulal Gupta Son of Late Bansidhar Gupta .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-02-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since 21.05.2015 in a case registered for the offences punishable under section 8, 20 and 22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in connection with Jadopur P.S. Case No.36/2015, pending before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj.

From a truck three persons were found fleeing away but they were caught hold by the police and they disclosed their names as Sunil Sahani, Pintu Pradhan and the petitioner. On query, they suggested that the 'ganja' is being transported through the truck. Subsequently, 40.700 k.gs 'ganja' were recovered. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58622 of 2015 (3) dt.22-02-2016 2/2 that the petitioner was returning after attending 'Tilak' ceremony, hence, on suspicion the accusation has been levelled and investigation has already concluded.

Learned APP for the state submits that on conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the statement of the petitioner itself suggests that the petitioner had knowledge that in the truck ganja was being carried.

Considering that the petitioner has been chargesheeted and recovery is of commercial quantity, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Accordingly, the application for bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T