Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24059 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2022 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Son Of Bharat Ram R/O Village- Chhaurahiya, P.S.- Saihara @ Sahiyara (WRONGLY Stated In Accused Column P.S.- Sonbarsa), DistrictSitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 8/20(b) (ii) (B) N.D.P.S. Act.

As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other coaccused persons were apprehended while they were coming from the side of Nepal to India and from their possession 2.5 kg ganja like substance was recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24059 of 2022(2) dt.08-08-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. From the FIR, it is apparent that the contraband has not been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Police has forcibly taken signature of the petitioner on blank papers and converted it into the seizure list. The petitioner has nothing to do with the recovered contraband and has got no concern with the same. The petitioner is having clean antecedent and he is in custody since 19.01.2022. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner submitting that the recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts that there has been recovery of 2.5 kg ganja, I do not think it to be a fit case for enlargement on bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail is rejected. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) Gautam/- U T