Mukesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37928 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2024 Thana- MADHWAPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Mukesh Yadav Son of Late Sitaram Yadav Resident of Village- Mainkoti, P.SSinghwara, Dist- Darbhagna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with G.R. No. 16 of 2024, arising out of Madhwapur P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 272, 273, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 20, 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that the 72.600 liters liquor and 1.300 Kg ganja have been recovered from tempo. The petitioner was apprehended on spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is neither owner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37928 of 2024(2) dt.17-05-2024 2/2 nor driver of the tempo in question, he was a passenger in the said vehicle. The recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity and just above the small quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 16.03.2024 and has got one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and also there is no compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the recovered contraband being below the commercial quantity and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with G.R. No. 16 of 2024, arising out of Madhwapur P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T