Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58216/2023dismissed

Ajay Das @ Ajay Kumar Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

2023-09-04Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58216 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2023 Thana- IMAMGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== AJAY DAS @ AJAY KUMAR RAVIDAS S/O- LATE FEKU DAS R/OVILLAGE- URAILLI, P.S.- HUNTERGANJ, DIST- CHATRA (JHARKHAND) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Atul Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-09-2023 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 88 of 2023 registered for the offences under sections 8, 17(c) and 18(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act lodged on 04.04.2023 by the informant, Uday Shankar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the police intercepted a bus and recovered/seized altogether, 5 kg 'afeem' from a bag which was lying beside the petitioner and the case of the police is that it belongs to him. Accordingly, the FIR lodged, seizure list prepared and he was taken into custody.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the bag was in the bus not in his conscious possession, it had nothing to do with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58216 of 2023(2) dt.04-09-2023 2/2 him, only to implicate in a pre-planned manner, this bag has been thrust upon him for which he has already suffered by being in custody since 04.04.2023 (as stated in paragraph 1 of the bail application) though he do not have criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail stating that the quantity is 5 kg and as per the FIR, he at the time of police enquiry stated that it belongs to him.

6. To this, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even this narration is forced by the police and not the acceptance of the petitioner.

7. Taking into account the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

8. In view of the fact that he is in custody since 04.04.2023, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months. (Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T