Ranjeet Kumar Mukhiya @ Ranjeet Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36476 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2023 Thana- RATANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Mukhiya @ Ranjeet Mukhiya S/o- Niranjan Mukhiya R/oBhim Nagar W.No-4, Ps- Birpur Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ratanpura P.S. Case No. 14 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases and allegation is of recovery of 238 kg of ganja from the apprehended accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of co-accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 29.07.2023.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36476 of 2024(2) dt.20-09-2024 2/2 submits that charges have been framed, trial has commenced and out of five witnesses, three prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt petitioner was not apprehended from the spot, but then his name transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused and the recovery of narcotics is of commercial quantity. It is also submitted that since trial has commenced and out of five witnesses, three prosecution witnesses have been examined, as such, if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond as he has antecedent of four cases even.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T