Karim Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39835 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2022 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Karim Manjhi Son of Rameshar Manjhi, Resident of Village - Piprahi, P.S.- Barachatti, District - Gaya (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Birendra Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Ms. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2024 Heard Mr. Birendra Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barachatti PS Case No. 161 of 2024, FIR dated 25.02.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(b), 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3.

According to the prosecution case, upon patrolling the field of forest in the village Piprahi, the forest guard saw some suspicious persons working where opium was planted and upon seeing the forest guard, they disappeared. It is further alleged that local people on condition that their names will not be disclosed, gave information about the people who were working in the field.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39835 of 2024(2) dt.10-07-2024 2/2 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. 5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that petitioner and other co-accused persons were involved in cultivation of opium planted over 25.61 acres of land, which belongs to forest department. Apart from that, petitioner carries one criminal antecedent of similar nature. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Barachatti PS Case No. 161 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, NDPS Act, Gaya. 7.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T