Imteyaz Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28668 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2019 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Imteyaz Alam S/O Moinuddin Alam @ Moinuddin Mia R/O Ward No. 13, P.O And P.S Kalaiya, Village Kalaiya Balrampur, District-Bara (NEPAL) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Union of India Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Asif Kalim For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bal Mukund Pd. Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-08-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Adapur P.S. Case No. 182 of 2019 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 55 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 18(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution case, on secret information raid was conducted and this petitioner along with co-accused Alam were apprehended and from their possession 520 gm of morpheme kept in two plastic packets were recovered. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that nothing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28668 of 2021(2) dt.09-08-2021 2/2 has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that both recovered plastic containing 520 gms of morpheme collectively comes to commercial quantity, but since both packets could not be separately weighed, as such it could not be attributed any exact quantity recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2019 having no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has already been submitted. Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that more than commercial quantity of morpheme has been recovered from possession of petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the quantity of recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. However, petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2019 trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T