Babita Ghosh @ Babita Ghose v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30713 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2022 Thana- KISHANGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Babita Ghosh @ Babita Ghose D/O Pandav Ghosh @ Pandab Ghosh R/O Maheshpur Krishnapur Nazirpur, P.S.- Karandih, District- Uttar Dinajpur (W.B.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Diwakar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 17.03.2022 in connection with Special Case No. 18 of 2022 arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 115 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 27a, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

3. Recovery is of 1.2028 kg of brown sugar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the allegation in the F.I.R. altogether 1.2028 kg of brown sugar has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30713 of 2023(4) dt.11-09-2023 2/3 submits that there is non-compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that the police after investigation have submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that she was apprehended along with the contraband and the the F.S.L. report confirms that the recovered contraband is Monoacetyl Morphine and the recovered contraband is 4 times more than the commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.

7. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Rajesh and Ors. reported in (2020) 12 SCC, 122 as well as in the case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30713 of 2023(4) dt.11-09-2023 3/3 AIR 2022 SC 3444 and Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated 28.03.2023.

8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja recovered would not justify that the petitioner had no knowledge of the narcotic nor there is any material to substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence in the event of release.

9. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Special Case No. 18 of 2022 arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 115 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kishanganj.

10. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T