Rana Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30612 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2024 Thana- RUPAULI District- Purnia ====================================================== Rana Yadav Son of Shambhu Yadav Resident of Village - Rupouli Basti, P.S.- Rupouli, District - Purnea, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mrs.Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Rupauli P.S. case No. 142 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that the 10.19 gram smack and one mobile were recovered from the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. The recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity. The petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30612 of 2025(2) dt.07-05-2025 2/2 is in custody since 15.01.2025 and has six criminal criminal antecedents. Co-accused have been granted bail by this Bench vide Annexure-2 series to this petition.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submits that the petitioner has six criminal antecedents and he does not deserve bail. Learned APP also submits that co-accused have been granted regular bail by this Court but they have only only one criminal antecedent whereas petitioner has six criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the fact that petitioner has six criminal antecedents of similar N.D.P.S. Act, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of three months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below itself. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Pankaj/- U T