Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50870/2016rejected

Uday Kumar Chaudhary And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-09Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50870 of 2016 (5) dt.09-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50870 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2016 Thana -ALOULI District- KHAGARIA ======================================================

1. Uday Kumar Chaudhary

2. Arun Kumar Chaudhary @ Arvind Kumar Both Sons of Harihar Chaudhary

3. Narendra Chaudhary Son of Rajendra Chaudhary All are residents of Mohraghat, Police Station - Alauli, District - Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Alauli P.S. Case No. 62 of 2016 registered under Sections 17/18 of the N.D.P.S Act corresponding to Special Case No. 02 of 2016.

It is alleged that the police on raid found opium plants of about four feet height being cultivated in the land of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegations against them are false. The petitioners are the owner of the land and the same was sub-lated to the co-accused Jahuri

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50870 of 2016 (5) dt.09-02-2017 Bind and they have no concerned with the opium plants. Petitioner no. 1 is 70 years old.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is recovery of opium plants from the land of the petitioners.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Their prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Prakash/- U T