Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15663/2024bail rejected

Khurshed Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-13Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15663 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2023 Thana- PURUSHOTTAMPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Khurshed Alam, Male, aged about 32 years, Son of Ushaman Miyan, Resident of Village- Paroraha, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 13-03-2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Purshottampur P.S. Case No.-100 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 20(B)(ii)(B), 22, 23 and 24 of the NDPS Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is a case of 4.5 kg. ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the alleged recovery is less than commercial quantity. Petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15663 of 2024(2) dt.13-03-2024 2/2 5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the first information report, seizure list as well as impugned order dated 30.01.2024, it appears that 4.5 kg. ganja was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and it is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months after framing of charge, if the charge has not been framed, then the trial Court is directed to complete the proceeding of framing of charge within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the proceeding does not conclude within a period of six months, then the petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T