Gulab Bind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14574 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2022 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== GULAB BIND S/O Dingar Bind R/O Village- Shiopur, P.S- Chainpur, District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjay Kumar Patel For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 12-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 8(C)/20(b) (ii)(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

As per FIR, prosecution case relates to recovery of total 51 kg 08 grams incriminating ganja wrapped in plastic bag covered with straw which was kept in hut owned by the petitioner. Accordingly, the instance has been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery of ganja like narcotic substance. It is further submitted the provision of N.D.PS. Act

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14574 of 2023(3) dt.12-07-2023 2/2 has not been followed by the prosecution. Nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. He has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 6.11.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that petitioner is said to be indulged in illegal trade of Ganja. Thereafter, 51.8 kg of incriminating ganja has been recovered from a hut belonging to the petitioner and the same is much more than commercial quantity as per the N.D.P.S. Act. Further, seizure list witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T