Imteyaz Alam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32190 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2022 Thana- BHANGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Dukha Ram S/O Late Thak Ram, Resident Of Mahadeo Patti, P.S. - Sherwa, District - Parsa, Nepal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 33585 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2022 Thana- BHANGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Imteyaz Alam S/O Hadish Miyan Resident Of Piparpati, P.S. - Mainatand, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32190 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 33585 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-12-2022 Let the defect, if any, be removed within two weeks from today.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.Ps. for the State.
The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Bhangaha P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022 lodged under Sections 20, 22,23, 24 and 27 of N.D.P.S. Act.
As per prosecution case, total recovery of 35 kg. Ganja has alleged to be made form the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32190 of 2022(3) dt.07-12-2022 2/2 are two persons accused in this case but it is not specific that from whose possession how much NDPS material has been recovered. Counsel further submits that antecedents of both the petitioners are clean, they are in custody since 16.02.2022, charge sheet has already been submitted in this case and charge has also been framed.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the recovered material is below than the commercial quantity.
In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, therefore, their bail petitions are hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioners that they may renew their prayer for bail after 9 months of framing of charge. Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial at the earliest.
With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/- U T