Ramesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40580 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2022 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran ====================================================== RAMESH SINGH Son of Late Bhadai Singh Resident of Village - Atta , P.s.- Marhaura, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 13-10-2022 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks.

The case is registered under sections 8, 20(b)(ii) (c)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, in connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 97 of 2022.

As per the prosecution story, the police has alleged that during the vehicle checking, they found a Maruti Car coming from Sandalpur and upon signaled to stop, the driver of the vehicle tried to speed up the car. It was intercepted and those sitting were apprehended and from the bags that was present in the vehicle, altogether 136 kgs. of 'Ganja' in different bags were recovered/seized. Accordingly, the person who gave

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40580 of 2022(2) dt.13-10-2022 2/2 their name as Ramesh Singh and Bablu Bhagat were taken into custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought attention of this Court to anomalies in the timing of the FIR visa-vis the seizure list to show that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and accordingly in the backdrop of the fact that he has been in custody for the last six months, it is submitted that he deserve bail.

Per contra, the learned APP submits that considering the amount of recovery/seizure of 136 kgs. of 'Ganja', the petitioner does not deserve bail and has accordingly opposed the bail application.

Taking into account the amount of recovery that has been incorporated in the FIR, the seizure list bears the signature, this Court for the present is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/Ajay Singh U T