Arun Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24321 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1408 Year-2019 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== ARUN SAHANI Son of Brahamdev Sahni Resident of Village - Vijay Chhapra, Dadar Kolhua, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-09-2020 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ahiyapur Town PS Case No. 1408/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner as per First Information Report is that the police apprehended ten accused persons and recovered 100 Grams of Charas from each of the accused persons and the arrested accused persons disclosed the name of their associates and further disclosed that they used to bring Charas from the petitioner and others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of statement made by the arrested accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and no Charas has been recovered from his possession.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24321 of 2020(2) dt.29-09-2020 2/2

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that from the statement of the arrested accused persons from whose possession a huge quantity of Charas has been recovered which goes to show that petitioner was indulged in illegal trade/sale and purchase of Charas, for which, a detailed investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary. As such, petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that from the statement of the arrested accused persons, it appears that they disclosed the name of petitioner from where they had purchased the Charas, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T