Prince @ Babloo Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38776 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-633 Year-2020 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Prince @ Babloo Chaudhary, Son Of Arvind Chaudhary Resident Of Village - Daulatpur Dewariya, P.S.- Sadar Hazipur, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/ 20(6)/22C/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the allegation is of recovery of 20.100 kg. of Ganja.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Ravi Kumar. It is next submitted that the alleged Ganja is said to have been recovered from a scooty which does not belong to the petitioner.

The learned Additional P.P. opposes the bail

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38776 of 2022(2) dt.07-12-2022 2/2 application and submits that the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Ravi Kumar. Though, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the scooty does not belong to him, then there is averment in the anticipatory bail application to remotely suggest even that the scooty does not belong to him, as such, it is a bald statement made in order to seek anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the alleged recovery is of commercial quantity.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T