Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 37253 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2018 Thana- SUGAULI RAIL PS District- East Champaran ====================================================== SURAJ KUMAR SON OF KAPILDEO PASWAN @ KAPILDEV PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MEHA MEHAN, WARD NO. 2, P.S.- DANDARI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 17-05-2021 This case has been taken up today for consideration through Video Conferencing.

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

The petitioner seeks bail in Sugauli Rail Police Station Case No 60 of 2018 arising out of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (for brevity, NDPS) Act Case No 76 of 2018 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 8 and 20 of NDPS Act, 1985.

The petitioner is alleged to have been arrested with 13 packets, which if taken together, amounted to 6.5 Kilograms of Charas. In the circumstances, he is in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37253 of 2020(11) dt.17-05-2021 2/2 30.11.2018.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He was a student and was returning home from the house of his sister-in-law. On the way, due to previous enmity between the father of the petitioner and the informant, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail referring to Section 32A of NDPS Act. It is submitted that the recovered quantity being much beyond the commercial quantity, the petitioner, in terms of the statutory provision, is not entitled to the privilege of bail until and unless, by way of argument, prima facie, he is able to show to the Court that the offence has not been committed. Having failed to do so, the petitioner's prayer for bail is fit to be rejected. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected for the present.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T