Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41489/2023rejected

Amod Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-13Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41489 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2022 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul ====================================================== AMOD KUMAR YADAV Son of Sri Krishnadev Yadav Resident of Ward No. 07, Bhaptiyahi, P.S.-Bhaptiyahi, District-Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dinesh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 13-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 8, 20(c)(ii)A and 21 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. It is case of recovery of total 104 Kg of Ganja like substance from the house of the petitioner and from other coaccused's house also.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that as alleged Ganja was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41489 of 2023(5) dt.13-12-2023 2/2 bail petition. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.01.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and there has been recovery of huge quantity of Ganja like substance from the possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that the seized Ganja like substance comes within the purview of commercial quantity as per N.D.P.S. Act. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T