Ravindra Ram @ Rabindra Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35018 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2023 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Ravindra Ram @ Rabindra Ram, Male, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Bahadur Ram, Resident of Village - Bishnupur, Police Station - Jadopur, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jadopur P.S. Case No. 182 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b) (ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. As per allegation in the FIR. it is a case of recovery of 5 Kg. Ganja from the possession of the petitioner.
4. This is the second attempt for regular bail of the petitioner. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15852 of 2024 vide order dated 14.03.2024 with an observation that the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35018 of 2025(2) dt.20-06-2025 2/3 trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of mere suspicion. He submits that the alleged recovery has been made from an auto, which is not owned by the petitioner and he was only acting under the instruction of his employer being unaware of the articles loaded in the auto. He further submits that the alleged recovery was made from a public transport vehicle and not from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He next submits that the alleged recovery is small quantity and less than commercial quantity. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition is in custody since 27.07.2023.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.
7. From perusal of the FIR, seizure list as well as the impugned order of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st Special Judge N.D.P.S., Gopalganj dated 16.04.2025, it appears that petitioner is named in the FIR and his name transpired in this case only on the basis of suspicion. From perusal of the records, it appears that one prosecution witness has been examined as yet and the progress of the trial is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35018 of 2025(2) dt.20-06-2025 3/3 likely to be concluded in near future and petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2023, so considering all these aspects of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is very slow progress of the trial, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, let the petitioner above named 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 the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, First, Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Gopalganj in connection with Jadopur P.S. Case No. 182 of 2023.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.
U T