Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26274/2018dismissed

Md. Imran v. The State Of Bihar

2018-05-03Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26274 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2018 Thana- MADANPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Md. Imran, Son of Md. Sultan @ Md. Sultan Ansari Resident of VillageMadanpur, Police Station-Madanpur, District-Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-05-2018 Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, who is in custody in Madanpur P.S. Case No.47 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 8/20(i)(c )/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, has prayed for grant of bail .

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been made accused on an accusation that he was owner of the vehicle, from which huge quantity of Ganja was recovered. A plea has been taken that the petitioner had already sold the vehicle to one Lal Babu Paswan and, as such, the petitioner is not having any connection with the vehicle in question . He further submits that even the accused, who were arrested by the police, had not disclosed the name of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26274 of 2018(2) dt.03-05-2018 2/2 petitioner. On the aforesaid ground , a prayer has been made for grant of bail.

Fact remains that a plea was taken before the court below that seized vehicle was sold by the petitioner only on 03.02.2018 and occurrence had taken place on 22.02.2018. On the record there is nothing to show that the vehicle was actually in the name of other accused or not. Fact remains that the vehicle is still continuing in the name of the petitioner in the record of the District Transport Office.

Considering the nature of accusation as well as recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from the vehicle in question as well as the fact that the petitioner was owner of the vehicle, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for passing favourable order.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T