Pawan Kumar v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30065 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== Pawan Kumar Son Of Sachitaanand Singh R/O- Vill- Mathurachak, Sultanpur, P.S.- Bidupur Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union Of India ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Y. C. Verma, Senior Advocate :

Mr. Ashish, Advocate :

Mr. Alexander Ashok, Advocate For the NCB :

Ms. Renuka Sharma, Advocate :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate :

Mr. Rajne Kant Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 12-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the NCB.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Allegedly, it is a case of recovery of 96 Kg. Ganja from a Maruti Ciaz car bearing registration no. BR01ES-3421 said to be belonging to the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and petitioner has clean antecedent.

However, learned counsel for the NCB has opposed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30065 of 2022(3) dt.12-12-2022 2/2 the anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no.BR-01ES-3421 whereby the said ganja was being carried by the co-accused Chunnu Kumar and Dipak Kumar and the CDR of the petitioner also shows that the petitioner was always in contact with the said co-accused. He further submits that on the basis of confessional statement of said co-accused, a notice was issued to the petitioner but neither he appeared before the I.O. nor did he sent any reply to prove his innocence.

After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T