Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47380/2023rejected

Ramanand v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-11Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47380 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2022 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan ====================================================== Ramanand Son Of Desh Raj Resident Of Village- Nangla Siwar, Police Station- Bidhua, District- Mainpuri (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandra Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 11-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 8/20(b)(ii) (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Prosecution case relates to recovery of 230.620 kg of ganja like narcotics substance from a truck and this petitioner was arrested on spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is only driver of the said vehicle and he has no concern with the recovered ganja like narcotics substance. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47380 of 2023(4) dt.11-10-2023 2/2 the petitioner and he has no knowledge about the illegal goods kept in the vehicle. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 21.06.2022.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in FIR and the recovered ganja like substance is more than commercial quantity as per NDPS Act.

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.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year, failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T