← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37880/2020bail rejected

Ramesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-02Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37880 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2020 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== Ramesh Singh, Son of Late Jayanit Singh, Resident of Village- Arak, P.S.- Krishna Brahmpur, Distt- Buxar, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Brahmpur Chakki P.S. Case No.233 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which is pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-VI, Buxar.

There is alleged recovery of 20 Kgs. Ganja from the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, the allegation is "about 20 Kgs.". Such allegation would not attract the consequences of commercial quantity, as the prosecution itself is not sure that the Ganja is 20 Kgs. or some more. Further submission is regarding non-compliance of the mandatory

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37880 of 2020(3) dt.02-03-2021 2/2 procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner continues to be in custody since 15.05.2020.

Learned APP draws attention of the Court towards the seizure memo wherein the quantity of recovered Ganja has been shown as 20 Kgs. Referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is submitted that the petitioner, in view of the quantity of recovery, is not entitled to bail.

Considering the rival submissions, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail. The same is rejected.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T