Pramod Kumar Yadav @ Pramod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32656 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2021 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== PRAMOD KUMAR YADAV @ PRAMOD YADAV Son of Late Biseshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Bela Ward No.7, P.S.- Narpatganj (Basmatiya), Distt.- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar , APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-03-2022 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalan Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Special Case No. 04 of 2021 arising out of Narpatganj (Basmatiya) PS Case No. 53/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8C/20/22 of the NDPS Act. 2.5 Kilograms of Ganja and some psychotropic medicines, namely, Nitrovet-10, Spamso-Proxyvon Plus have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the Ganja and other psychotropic medicines have not been recovered from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32656 of 2021(4) dt.04-03-2022 2/2 his conscious possession. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and the Ganja recovered is less than commercial quantity and he is in custody since 26.01.2021 having no criminal antecedent.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the Ganja which has been recovered from the possession of petitioner is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity which attracts Section 20 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that the Ganja which has been recovered was in knowledge and control of the petitioner. Regards being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the recovery of Ganja which is less than commercial quantity but more than small quantity and recovery of other psychotropic substance, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. The same is, accordingly, rejected at this stage.

However, petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after one year from today, if the trial does not register any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T