Devanand Shrivastava v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54746 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1602 Year-2023 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== Devanand Shrivastava Son Of Late Rajesh Srivastava Resident Of Village - Ekarai, P.S. - Thariyawan, District - Fatehpur (Uttar Pradesh) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gaya Excise P.S. Case No. 1602 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. 3.

Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 96 Kg of ganja like substance from the dicky of the car, which is alleged to be driven by the petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 10-09-2023 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54746 of 2024(3) dt.29-10-2024 2/2 alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was oblivious of the fact that contraband was laden in the vehicle. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.

The prayer is rejected.

8.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T