Raghunath Saw @ Raghunath Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35826 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2024 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad ====================================================== RAGHUNATH SAW @ RAGHUNATH SAH SON OF MITHAI SAW RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - RARAIYAHI, POLICE STATION - TAJPUR, DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hulasganj P.S. Case No.44 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 20(B)(ii)/8(c) of the NDPS Act. 3.

As per FIR, there is recovery of 7 kg. of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of this petitioner and signature of the petitioner has forcibly been taken on the seizure list. It is further submitted that petitioner is a man

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35826 of 2024(3) dt.31-07-2024 2/2 of clean antecedent and he is in custody since 16.02.2024. 5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6.

In view of the submissions and nature of allegation and as huge quantity of total 7 Kg. of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and as it appears from case diary that in presence of two independent witnesses seizure list has been prepared, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at present.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

8.

However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year custody period.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U T