Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53042/2018dismissed

Sunil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2019-01-23Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53042 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-839 Year-2017 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Sunil Yadav S/o Indradeo Yadav, Resident of F/P-9, Dunlop Old Family, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Hooghly (West Bengal.) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. J.K. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 23-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 8/20(b) (ii)(c) 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act registered in connection with Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No. 839 of 2017.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the alleged recovery of 809 Kg of Ganja containing in 73 packets from the driver of the truck belonging to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had already executed a general power of attorney in favour of Santosh Yadav on 21.01.2017 prior to the alleged occurrence by which the truck in question had been handed over to the said Santosh Yadav in order to maintain, supervise, manage, run and sell the vehicle.

4. Learned APP submits that the aforesaid Santosh Yadav remains an agent of the petitioner under general power of attorney and the petitioner cannot be distanced from recovery. It is further submitted that huge quantity of 809 Kg of ganja has been recovered from the truck of which the petitioner is admittedly the owner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53042 of 2018(3) dt.23-01-2019 2/2 Moreover, there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail to an accused in terms of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) U T