Laxmi Yadav @ Laxmi Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21316 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2024 Thana- ANDHRAMATH District- Madhubani ====================================================== Laxmi Yadav @ Laxmi Narayan Yadav Son of Late Khushi Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Arnama, P.S. Andhramath, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Andhramath P.S. Case No. 10 of 2024, dated 17.01.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and u/s 21/27 of N.D.P.S. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, a cartoon and a black colored bag containing drugs have been recovered from the terrace of Laxmi Yadav (petitioner) and a cartoon containing medicines was recovered from the shop of the petitioner and the co-accused Dheeraj Kumar Yadav was found sitting there.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

2/4 this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.01.2024. There is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Hira Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of Indian and Anr. (2020)20 Supreme Court Cases 272 of Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "weight of entire materials/mixture along with neutral material is to be considered for ascertainment of weather the quantity is "small quantity" or "commercial quantity". The seized contraband is of commercial quantity. He also submits that the seized contraband quantity belongs to the petitioner which is more than commercial quantity. Total 106 tablets of Nitroposum-10, 847 tablets of Nitravet-10, 627 injections of Abbott (2 ml. each), 600 injections of Diazepam (2 ml. each) were recovered from the petitioner's terrace.

List of Seized Items:

Sr.

No.

Particulars Quantity 1.

Onerax 100 ml. syrup 132 bottle Chlorphenamine and codeine 2.

Codiwell syrup 100 ml.

100 bottle Codeine phosphate 3.

Nitrosun- 10 tablet 106 Nos Nitrazepam

3/4 4.

Carispas-1 154 Nos Urispas contains Flavoxate 5.

Nitravet- 10 tablet 847 Nos Nitrazepam 6.

Abbott 2 ml. Injection (Phenergan) 627 Nos Amoxyclav+ Clavulanic Acid 7.

Leegesic 2 ml injection 600 Nos Diclofenac, Paracetamol and Chlorzoxazone 8.

Diazepam 2 ml injection 733 Nos Entry No: 194, NDPS Act 9.

Sterile hypodermic syringe 3 ml 89 Nos 10.

Sword 02 Nos 11.

Mobile- Vivo Model nov2221, Serial no10hcc30azk00051 01 No 12.

Motorcycle Hero Splendor (Black Colour) No- BR 50 V 2958 01 No As per Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the two conditions are that the Court should be satisfied with:- (i) There are reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) He is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. The Court is of the opinion that the parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act have not satisfied in the facts of the

4/4 instant case.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 SCC Online SC 891 has held that " The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act."

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the recovery of commercial quantity from conscious possession of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Ranjeet/- U T