Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42133 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-729 Year-2020 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR S/o- Rambali Prasad Kushwaha @ Rambali Prasad Resident of Village - Motipur Bathana, P.S. - Motipur, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-02-2022 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kanti PS Case No. 729/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20, 22 of NDPS Act as well as Section 25(1-b)a, 26 of the Arms Act.

The police recovered 400 Grams of smack, a country made pistol and one live cartridge from the possession of petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that from perusal of the FIR and seizure list, it would be evident that Charas like material wrapped in plastic has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42133 of 2021(2) dt.01-02-2022 2/2 recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that chargesheet has already been submitted against the petitioner but no forensic report has been attached in the charge-sheet. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the recovery of Charas along with pistol and one live cartridge from the possession of the petitioner and the Charas recovered is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, rejected.

However, petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today if the trial does not record any substantial progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T