Munna Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33551 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- Pastpar Pusthi District- Saharsa ====================================================== Munna Singh S/o Amarendra Narayan Singh R/o Village- Pama, Police Station- Pastpar, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-05-2025 Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pastpar P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, F.I.R dated 14.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 8,20(B),(ii) (A) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. Recovery is of 4.50 kg ganja.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the possession of apprehended person, namely, Chhavi Kumar and Chandrashekhar Kumar and name of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33551 of 2025(2) dt.21-05-2025 2/3 transpired on the basis of disclosure made by these apprehended persons. Petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery and except the disclosure made by the apprehended persons there is no other material which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present crime. He further submits that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act and it appears that the recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity. Hence, there is no embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has clean antecedent and the recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity and name of the petitioner transpired on the basis of disclosure made by apprehended persons, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33551 of 2025(2) dt.21-05-2025 3/3 Principal Sessions Judge, Saharsa in connection with Pastpar P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T