Ramesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32964 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2017 Thana- THAKRAHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Ramesh Ram, Son of Sudama Ram, Resident of Village- Baluadwa, Police Station- Thakraha, O.P. Bhitaha, District West- Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastva, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 12-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 23.04.2017 in connection with Thakaraha (Bhitaha) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judgecum- Special Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the police personnel, is that on information, the petitioner was apprehended and 4 kilograms of ganja was recovered from his motorcycle.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32964 of 2017(5) dt.12-09-2017 2/2 the aforesaid case. He submits that the ganja seized was less than the commercial quantity and that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the petitioner is a habitual offender and two cases have been lodged against him, out of which one is of similar nature.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T