Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50647/2023rejected

Vivek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-05Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50647 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-497 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== VIVEK KUMAR S/O SHIV BACHAN PRAJAPATI @ SHIV BACHAN PRAJAPAT R/O VILLAGE- RUPASPUR, PS. BUNIYAD GANJ, DIST. GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 05-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 8(c), 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. It is case of recovery of 1 Kg of Brown sugar like substance from the possession of the petitioner.

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 the petitioner never dealt any sorts of business of brown sugar and moreover, from the bare perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the informant has not given any value of recovered articles. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. Petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50647 of 2023(3) dt.05-12-2023 2/2 languishing in judicial custody since 05.06.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR. He further submitted that the seized Brown Sugar like substance, which has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner comes within the purview of commercial quantity as per N.D.P.S. Act. 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