Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55284 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2023 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Singh Son Of Kishori Singh Resident Of Village- Barua Bahuara, Ps- Barari Op, Raja Pakar, Distt-Vaishali 2.

Majanu Patel @ Santosh Kumar Son Of Vilash Patel Resident Of VillageSikta Tola, Ps- Sikta, Distt- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raju Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 35 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 414 of the IPC.

Prosecution case relates to recovery of total 157.320 kg of ganja like intoxicating substance from a truck bearing Reg. No. JH09-1279 and these petitioners were apprehended by the police on spot.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55284 of 2023(3) dt.28-11-2023 2/2 There is no compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, they are languishing in judicial custody since 27.01.2023. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioners are named in FIR and huge quantity of ganja has been recovered which is much more than commercial quantity as per NDPS Act.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and, as such, their prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T