Firoj Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39359 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Firoj Sahani Son of Deyali Sahani Resident of Village- Panapur Tadhawa Tola, P.S-Harsidhi, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(2) and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act read with Sections 8, 20b(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation is of recovery of 1.538 kg of charas from the possession of Kanhai Sahani along with liquor.

4. It is next submitted that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession, but then his name transpired in the confessional statement of Kanhai Sahani from whose possession charas was recovered. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39359 of 2024(4) dt.06-09-2024 2/2

5. The learned APP for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, submits that petitioner may not have been apprehended from the place of occurrence, but then his name transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused from whose possession narcotics was recovered. It is further submitted that from pleadings made in the regular bail application, it is not clear whether charges have been framed against the petitioner or not. It is also submitted that in the event if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charges against the petitioner, till date, have not been framed.

7. Considering the submission made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T