Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30736/2017rejected

Dhiren Barman v. The Union Of India Through Directorate, Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna

2017-08-01Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30736 of 2017 (3) dt.01-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30736 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -6 Year- 2016 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Dhiren Barman Son of Late Ram Mohan Barman, resident of VillageFalimari Satall (Ansha), P.S. Coochbehar, Kotwali, District- Coochbehar (West Bengal).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India Through Directorate, Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma,CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2016 in connection with DRI (NDPS) P.S. Case No. 6 of 2016-17 under Sections20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the alleged bags of Ganja have been recovered from birth No.41 and 44, which were allotted to Arun Mandal and Samar Gohos and this petitioner has no concern with the alleged articles. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in custody for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30736 of 2017 (3) dt.01-08-2017 the last ten months.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of this petitioner and submitted this petitioner has along with his associate was apprehended by the D.R.I. officials while they were carrying huge quantity of Ganja by Train. Moreover, the petitioner has also confessed his involvement in the alleged offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T