Mithilesh Kumar v. The Union Of India Through N.C.B.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47394 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar S/O Sri Kameshwar Das R/o Mohalla- Postal Park, Budh Nagar, Road No. 1, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India through N.C.B. Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha For the Union of India : Ms. Shail Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.K.N.Singh A.D.S.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-01-2022 Heard both parties through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in F.No.NCB/PZU/V/12/2021 corresponding to Special Case (NDPS) No. 53 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution case, 710 gms of Morphine, one country made pistol, one country made Katta, four live cartridge and other articles have been recovered from rented flat of co-accused Sunny Kumar who was arrested along with two other co-accused. Co-accused Sunny Kumar has taken name of this petitioner as one of the partners in selling narcotic substance.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47394 of 2021(4) dt.21-01-2022 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no narcotic substance has been recovered from conscious possession of this petitioner. Alleged Morphine has been recovered from rented flat of Sunny Kumar. Mandatory provision of search and seizure has not been followed and petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2021.

Counsel for Union of India however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that recovered narcotic substance comes under the ambit of commercial quantity and apart from that arms and ammunition were also recovered.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T