Santosh Sahani @ Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32676 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2021 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== SANTOSH SAHANI @ SANTOSH KUMAR SON OF SHIVBALAK SAHANI Resident of Village - Hathiyahi, P.S.- Pipra Kothi, Distt.- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and sections 20, 23 and 25 of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution case, various incriminating substances were recovered from different accused persons. From the possession of the petitioner, it is stated that 600 grams of charas was recovered in a plastic packet.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32676 of 2021(3) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The mandatory provision with respect to search and seizure under the NDPS Act have not been followed. The petitioner is in custody since 18.1.2021 and has no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory on record to confirm the fact that the substance allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner is charas.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of recovery of 600 grams of charas from the possession of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U T