← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32436/2024bail rejected

Srikant Ray @ Srikant Yadav v. Union Of India Through Asst. Director, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna

2024-09-20Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32436 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2020 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna ====================================================== Srikant Ray @ Srikant Yadav Son Of Arjun Rai Resident Of Village - Mekar, Ward No.12, Post - Mekar, P.S. - Mokama, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union Of India Through Asst. Director, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna Bihar 2.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Niraj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rita Verma For the DRI :

Mr. Anshuman Singh (Sr. SC, DRI) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI, Mr. Anshuman Singh.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 28.10.2020 and an allegation is of recovery of 2160.680 kg of Ganja from a truck and the petitioner was apprehended from the spot.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32436 of 2024(2) dt.20-09-2024 2/2 petitioner has remained in judicial custody for nearly four years but still the trial is proceeding. It is also submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence. The Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in the nature of recovery alleged to have been made in the FIR.

5. The application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sudhanshu/- U T