Ranjeet Kumar Mehta @ Ranju Mehta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58444 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2023 Thana- RATANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== RANJEET KUMAR MEHTA @ RANJU MEHTA Son of Parmanand Mehta @ Pramanand Mehta Resident of Village-Piprahi @ Piprahipatti, Ward No. 3, Police Station-Ratanpura @ Ratanpur, District-Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Subodh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 04-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. It is case of recovery of 238 Kg of Ganja like substance from the petitioner along with other co-accused persons.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that as alleged Ganja was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been followed. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 28.02.2023.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58444 of 2023(4) dt.04-12-2023 2/2 application for bail and submitted that petitioner has been apprehended on spot and he is named in the FIR. He further submitted that the seized Ganja like substance from the possession of the petitioner comes within the purview of commercial quantity as per N.D.P.S. Act and the F.S.L. report has also corroborated the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.
6. 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.
7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T