Anuj Patel @ Anod Patel @ Anju Patel v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40445 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2016 Thana -PATNA GRP CASE District- PATNA ====================================================== Anuj Patel @ Anod Patel @ Anju Patel Son of late Dhuri Patel Resident of Village- Manglapur, P.S. - Sangrampur, District East Champaran(Motihari). .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

01-12-2016 Heard Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Chandra Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, who is in custody in NDPS Case (Special Case) No. 37 of 2016 {arising out of Rail Patna Jn. (Rajendra Nagar) P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016} registered for offence under Sections 328, 379, 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") was added, has prayed for grant of bail.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner nor there is any material against the petitioner. It has been argued that petitioner was named by his own uncle, with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40445 of 2016 (3) dt.01-12-2016 2/2 whom, the petitioner was having disputed relation. He submits that only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, petitioner has been made accused, whereas, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, opposing the prayer for bail, submits that it was a case of administering narcotic and psychotropic substance to the passenger and from the F.I.R., it is evident that information was received that two persons were searching of a passenger, who was on the railway platform. After arrival, one accused person succeeded in fleeing away, however; one of the co-accused was arrested, who disclosed his name as well as the name of the accused, who fled away i.e. petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is also accused in relation to the almost similar accusation i.e. for offence under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the accusation as well as the fact that petitioner is accused for commission of offence under the NDPS Act in other case also, there is no reason to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T