Deepak Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33809 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-413 Year-2020 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== DEEPAK SAHNI Son of Mushafir Sahni @ Mosafir Sahni @ Sone Lal @ Nanhki Sahni Resident of Village - vijay Chhapra, P.S.- Ahiyapur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Khurshid Anwar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-02-2022 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khurshid Anwar, learned APP for the State. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ahiyapur PS Case No. 413 of 2020 registered for the offence under Section 20 / 22 of the NDPS Act.

500 grams of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and at the time of search and seizure procedures prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been followed. He further submits that Ganja recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than small quantity and the petitioner is in custody since 9 / 5 /

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33809 of 2021(3) dt.22-02-2022 2/2 2020 .

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the case diary submits that petitioner has large number of criminal antecedent, however, the same has been concealed by the petitioner inasmuch as in paragraph 19 of the case diary 05 criminal antecedent having a case under the NDPS Act are mentioned, whereas, petitioner has only disclosed 02 criminal antecedent in paragraph 3 of his bail application. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has concealed the material fact regarding his criminal antecedent and has not stated the same correctly in paragraph 3 of the bail application, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly the prayer for grant of regular bail is rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T