Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53135/2025bail rejected

Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-09Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53135 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2024 Thana- JOGBANI District- Araria ====================================================== Pappu Yadav Son of Raju Yadav Village- Jatwa Tola, W.No-14, Morang PsRani Nepal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Archana Shahi, Sr. Advocate Ms. Deeksha Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

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

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No. 192 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 114.500 Kg of ganja from the possession of petitioner along with other co-accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53135 of 2025(3) dt.09-09-2025 2/2 further submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of ganja. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. 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