Mahesh Roy @ Mahesh Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29263 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-04 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Mahesh Roy @ Mahesh Ray S/o Late Bhuneshwar Roy Resident of VillageKailu Tol, Sukhsena, P.S.- Barhara, District- Purnea 2.

Uma Shankar Roy @ Omshankar Ray S/o Late Bhuneshwar Roy Resident of Village- Kailu Tol, Sukhsena, P.S.- Barhara, District- Purnea 3.

Jai Krishna Yadav @ Jay Krishn Kumar Yadav @ Jay Krishn S/o Mahesh Roy Resident of Village- Kailu Tol, Sukhsena, P.S.- Barhara, DistrictPurnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Diksha Kumari, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(B), 18(B), 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have planted Poppy plant in their field.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They falsely been implicated in this case. They have got no criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29263 of 2025(2) dt.19-05-2025 2/2 antecedent. Counsel also submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that some seizure was made of the poppy plant and it was also destructed as well. The seizure shows that 30 plants of poppy was recovered. In FIR, it is not clear that as to how much of the poppy plant was destructed. It is further submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are in judicial custody since 04.01.2025 and petitioner No. 3 is in custody since 05.03.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The above named petitioners are directed to be released on bail in connection with Barhara Kothi P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Purnea.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T