Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36362/2016rejected

Bibhav Kumar Mishra v. The Union Of India

2016-12-07Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36362 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2013 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Bibhav Kumar Mishra, Son of Madan Mishra, Resident of Village - Chapra Bahas, P.S. - Sugauli, District - East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Satyadarshi Sanjay (Addl. Solicitor General).

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 07-12-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in N.D.P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013, arising out of Spl. Case No. 18/12-13, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. One Tata Magic vehicle Registration No. BRO5P-6873 was intercepted from which 65 Kg. of the Ganja was recovered. The petitioner is owner of the vehicle and the petitioner had taken plea that he sold the vehicle to one Kuraish Kumar Tiwary on 18.12.2012 much prior to the date of recovery of the vehicle but Kuraish Kumar Tiwary denied the fact that he purchased the vehicle from the petitioner and on consideration of the facts aforesaid the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was earlier

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36362 of 2016 (3) dt.07-12-2016 2/2 rejected vide order dated 10.11.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39622 of 2015.

The petitioner again filed this anticipatory bail petition on the ground that the investigating officer again filed supplementary report in the complaint petition after closure of the investigation on the same complaint. The closure report of the complaint has not been filed.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I do not find any new ground to reconsider the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T