Md. Meraz Ahmad @ Md. Meraz @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25709 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2016 Thana -PALASI District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Md. Meraz Ahmad @ Md. Meraz @ Guddu son of Late Md. Alauddin, resident of village Palasi Bazar Chowk, P.S. Palasi, District Araria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Anusuiya Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-11-2016 Heard Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel who was assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar , learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail in Palasi P.S. Case No. 62 of 2016 registered for the offence under Section 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 22/25 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 27 (b) (ii) , 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

By way of referring to the F.I.R. it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was drug licencee. He submits that the licence indicated the area which includes the area from which the alleged drugs were recovered on an

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25709 of 2016 (3) dt.08-11-2016 2/2 allegation that it was psychotropic drug. He did not dispute the fact that drugs recovered were psychotropic but he submits that being licencee there was no question to implicate the petitioner for the alleged offences, whereas learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have perused the materials available on record particularly the F.I.R. The F.I.R. categorically indicates that from the house / premises of the petitioner huge quantity of psychotropic drugs were recovered and as such besides offences under the Indian Penal Code and Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 22 / 25 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act was incorporated.

In view of the facts and circumstances I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T