Dayanand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28087 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- MOUZAHIDPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Dayanand Kumar son of Anil Sah R/o- Aliganj Ps- Mojahidpur Babarganj Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No.21 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 21(c) and 22 of NDPS Act.

3.

As per FIR, there is recovery of total 200 gram of brown sugar has been made from possession of this petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that quantity of alleged recovered brown sugar is 200 gram which is more than small quantity and much less than commercial quantity. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28087 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2024 2/2 further submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and he is in custody since 08.01.2024.

5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6.

In view of the submissions as made above and as quantity of recovered article i.e. brown sugar i.e. 200 gram is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at present.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

8.

Learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the trial could not be concluded within specified period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U T