Satish Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42326 of 2016 ====================================================== Satish Sharma son of Kishori Sharma, Resident of Village- Banuchhapar, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil (Banuchhapar O.P.) District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-12-2016 Heard Sri S.N.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, who is in custody since 16.06.2016 in Bettiah Muffasil( Banuchhapar O.P.) P.S. Case No.280/2016 registered for the offence under Sections 20, 22, 24, 27, 29(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act, Sections 47(A), 35(c ) of the Bihar Excise ( Amendment) Act, 2016, and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act, has prayed for grant of bail.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no narcotic substance was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. However, recovery was affected from the room of one Prakash Patel. From the possession of the petitioner, one loaded country-made pistol and cartridge besides

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42326 of 2016 (3) dt.08-12-2016 2/2 currency notes total Rs.20,000/- was recovered. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the prayer for regular bail of one Sanjeev Kumar Patel @ Sanjeev Patel has been rejected on 1st December,2016 by this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.40256 of 2016, but the case of the petitioner is slightly different from the case of Sanjeev Patel. On the aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner.

However, after going through the material on record, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's case may not be distinguished from the case of co-accused Sanjeev Patel, whose prayer for bail has already been rejected. In view of facts and circumstances, there is no reason to extend the privilege of bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T