Md. Shahid v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57910 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2015 Thana -KHAGARIA GRP CASE District- KHAGARIA ====================================================== Keshav Kumar Singh @ Keshav Kumar @ Kaju Son of Mahendra Singh@ Upendra Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.274 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2015 Thana -KHAGARIA GRP CASE District- KHAGARIA ====================================================== Md. Shahid, Son of Late Kabir, .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.57910 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajeev Nayan(App) (In Cr.Misc. No.274 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-01-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

The petitioners are languishing in custody since 22.05.2015 in connection with Special Case No.3/2015, arising out of Khagaria Rail P.S. Case No.17/2015 registered for the offences punishable under sections 20/22 of the NDPS Act, pending before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57910 of 2015 (3) dt.21-01-2016 2/2 Special Judge, Khagaria.

From the possession of the petitioner Keshav Kumar Singh 27 tablets Alprax and from the possession of petitioner Md. Sahid 25 tablets ATIVAN sedatives were recovered.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that only on suspicion the accusation has been levelled.

It is submitted by learned APP for the State that the petitioners used to sedate railway's passengers for commission of crime and from the statement made in paragraph 3 of both the petitions it appears that the petitioners are involved in several cases.

Considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioners is rejected.

However, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T