Shahnwaz Ansari @ Md. Shahnwaz v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51976 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia ====================================================== Shahnwaz Ansari @ Md. Shahnwaz Son of Rustam Ansari R/O Rajokhar Bazaar, P.S.- Araria R.S., District - Araria, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mufassil PS Case No. 129 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. 3.

Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 213 grams smack, wherein petitioner was found sitting in the car.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner was merely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51976 of 2025(3) dt.19-09-2025 2/2 passenger in the vehicle and he was not aware about the illicit contraband being kept in the vehicle. The recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 27-05-2025 and has got five criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Other co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06-08-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50586 of 2025.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, recovery below commercial quantity, claim based on parity and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.

Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Mufassil PS Case No. 129 of 2025. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T