Jay Prakash Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49100 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2008 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictARRARIA ====================================================== Jay Prakash Mandal Son of Late Kadam Lal Mandal Resident of VillageNarayanpur, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nawal Kishor Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-01-2017 Heard Sri Bikram Deo Singh , learned counsel, assisted by Sri Nawal Kishor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor .

The sole petitioner, who is accused in a case in which prosecution report was submitted in the year 2008 in Special Case No. 20 of 2008 registered for offence under Section 18 and 8(b) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act has approached this court with prayer to extend the privilege of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on an allegation of planting 6500 plants of opium (poppy). He submits that petitioner was not at all aware about accusation against him.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49100 of 2016 (3) dt.09-01-2017 2/2 Only after the order of cognizance he came to know about the present case and thereafter , he approached the learned Special Judge for grant of anticipatory bail , which was rejected. He submits that since it was a false case petitioner may be directed to be released on anticipatory bail whereas on examining the record it is evident that prosecution report was submitted against the petitioner in the year 2008 itself with specific accusation of planting about 6500 plants of opium. It is also an admitted fact that subsequently order of cognizance has already been passed. Accordingly there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail particularly on an accusation which is serious in nature.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T