Kamakhya Giri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39554 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2020 Thana- GOH District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Kamakhya Giri son of Late Indradeo Giri Village- Shankarpur Po Ps- Haspura Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Goh PS Case No. 181 of 2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. 3.

The earlier bail application of the petitioner was twice rejected vide orders dated 05-01-2022 & 22-09-2023, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41073 of 2021 and Cr. Misc. 34611 of 2022, respectively.

4.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that 22 Kg 49 gm of Ganja was recovered from the physical possession of the persons named in the FIR, who disclosed name of the petitioner, as the one who had allegedly supplied Ganja to them.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39554 of 2024(3) dt.26-07-2024 2/3 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that petitioner is implicated in the instant case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons, namely, Nirju Kumar, Bhola Singh, Santosh Kumar, Satyendra Singh. It is submitted that petitioner has no concern with the recovered contraband. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that petitioner is a party to the criminal conspiracy. He further submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and the petitioner does not deserve bail. 7.

A report was called for from the Trial Court with respect to the stage of the case/trial. It has been reported that the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. 8.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the recovery, which is more

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39554 of 2024(3) dt.26-07-2024 3/3 than commercial quantity, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer is rejected.

9.

However, Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible, without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T