Deepak Uraw @ Deepak Oray @ Deepak Orao v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55616 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2023 Thana- KURSAKANTA District- Araria ====================================================== Deepak Uraw @ Deepak Oray @ Deepak Orao Son Of Mangala Uraw R/O Vill - Gaw Beri Bathan, Post - Rangeli, P.S. - Birat Nagar, Distt. - Morang (Nepal) ... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 29-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. It is case of recovery of 60 Kg of Ganja and a mobile phone from the possession of the petitioner and coaccused person.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. The provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed in this case, while preparing the seizure list. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55616 of 2023(4) dt.29-01-2024 2/2 since 14.03.2023.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR. He submitted that huge quantity of Ganja recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which comes within the purview of commercial quantity as per N.D.P.S. Act. He further submitted that the F.S.L. report has also corroborated the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T