← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22797/2021bail rejected

Sushil Kumar Pandey @ Nishant Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2021-12-15Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22797 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2020 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY @ NISHANT PANDEY S/o Kamlesh Pandey R/o village- Nagari, P.S.- Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

THE UNION OF INDIA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-12-2021 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner who is in custody since 24.12.2020 seeks bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 21 of 2020 arising out of Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 229 of 2020 registered for offence punishable under Section 8/20(B) (ii) (c)/27 of N.D.P.S. Act. Prosecution case in brief is that 25 kg of narcotic material purported to be ganja was recovered and in front of two witnesses seizure list was prepared in accordance with provisions of N.D.P.S., Act after obtaining sanction of the higher authority.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contractual worker engaged by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22797 of 2021(3) dt.15-12-2021 2/2 the power distribution company at Ara. He further submits that he is living separately from his father and he has no connection with the affairs of his father. He further submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as he was present at the time of arrest.

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State submits that the seized item is more than commercial quantity and as such the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and petitioner has not produced any evidence relating to his alleged contractual employment with the power distribution company, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. (Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T