Vinod Singh @ Rangbaz Singh @ Shivavinod Singh @ Ranalal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25658 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2019 Thana- AWTARNAGAR District- Saran ====================================================== VINOD SINGH @ RANGBAZ SINGH @ SHIVAVINOD SINGH @ RANALAL SINGH Son of Late Narvdeshwar Singh Resident of Village - Dhanaura , P.S.- Awatarnagar, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Awatarnagar P.S. Case No. 40 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and 25(1-b)a, and 26 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the name of this petitioner has been dragged in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, Mohan Rai. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 22.02.2019. Hence the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25658 of 2019(4) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.

Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is involved in illegal business of Ganja and when the house of the petitioner was raided on the confession of the co-accused, one country made pistol and a live cartridge along with cash of Rs. 12,700/- have been recovered from his conscious possession and total 26 kg Ganja and a loaded carbine along with mobile phone were also recovered from the house of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on regular bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T