Chandan Mukesh Mandal @Mukesh Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35606 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- JOGBANI District- Araria ====================================================== Chandan Mukesh Mandal @Mukesh Mandal Son Of Raj Kishor Mandal Village- Jhokhan Ward No 04 P S -Jogbani Distt- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Jogbani P.S Case No. 05 of 2024 from the Court of learned Sessions Cum Special Judge N.D.P.S Act, Araria registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, total 10 Kg ganja was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35606 of 2024(3) dt.31-07-2024 2/2 09.01.2024 and petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
5. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the FIR, Case diary, seizure list and impugned order dated 13.03.2024 it appears that total 10 kg ganja was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and petitioner had no proper explanation regarding the said recovery further, the said recovered ganja is above small quantity and below commercial quantity.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
8. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after the completion of one year of his custody. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T