Manoj Roy @ Manoj Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12258 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2021 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna ====================================================== Manoj Roy @ Manoj Ray Son of Bendeshar Roy @ Vindeshvar Ray Resident of Village- Naya Tola, Sabnima, P.S.- Athmagola, District- Patna (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case No.112 of 2021 (Special Case No.222 of 2021/Supplementary Record of Special Case No.58 of 2021), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) (B)/22 of the NDPS Act.

1.560 kg. of Ganja was recovered near a tea shop. It is alleged that the petitioner was indulged in the trade of Ganja. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is submitted that the police has recovered the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12258 of 2022(2) dt.03-08-2022 2/2 Ganja from a tea shop but the owner of the tea shop is not made accused in the case. It is submitted that the informant has previous enmity with the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. The occurrence took place on 09.06.2021, but the FIR was sent to the court on 15.06.2021. It is also submitted that there is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

The learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T