Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15938/2024bail rejected

Banti Verma @ Banti Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-23Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15938 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2022 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger ====================================================== Banti Verma @ Banti Kumar Son of Binod Verma @ Rajendra Sav Resident of Village- Ganga Sarai, P.S.- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 23-08-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kasim Bazar P.S. Case no.220 of 2022 registered under sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on the vehicle being intercepted and checked, it is stated that 206 kgs of ganja and subsequently further 50 kgs of ganja was recovered and the accused persons taken into custody. It is further stated that on inquiry, they disclosed that the seized ganja belonged to the petitioner herein.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15938 of 2024(6) dt.23-08-2024 2/2 case. Neither was he arrested at the place of occurrence nor any incriminating article recovered from his possession. Even the person named by the co-accused in the FIR is not the petitioner herein. The petitioner is in custody since 28.8.2023 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T