Gowardhan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6708 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2020 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== GOWARDHAN SINGH S/o Dilo Singh Resident of Vill.- Laualagan, P.S.- Chausa, Distt.- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case no. 16 of 2020 arising out of Chausa P.S. Case no. 209 of 2020 registered under sections 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the N.D.P.S. Act. As per allegation in the F.I.R, on information having been received, a raid was conducted and a number of persons including the petitioner herein were caught selling Ganja. A total of 8 kgs Ganja was recovered from the petitioner, immediate east of the temple.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession and he has been falsely implicated in the case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6708 of 2021(3) dt.24-06-2021 2/2 Referring to the seizure list, it is submitted that the place of recovery is the land east of the temple. There is no compliance of section 100 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 6.10.2020.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of recovery of 8 kgs Ganja from the possession of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

In the facts of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U T