Naresh Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45657 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -304 Year- 2016 Thana -DIHRINAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Naresh Prasad Gupta S/o Ramashish Gupta Resident of Village- New Area, Dehari, P.S.- Dehari, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh-1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2016 Heard Sri Aditya Narayan Singh - 1 , learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor The sole petitioner apprehending his arrest in Dehari ( Town) P.S. Case No. 304 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 8/ 20 (b) (ii) (c) /25 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act has prayed for grant of bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner by profession is an L.I.C. agent and that since there was some dispute with the co -accused Sidheshwar Ram petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that in the seizure list there is no signature of either of the family member or even the owner of the house of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45657 of 2016 (3) dt.22-11-2016 2/2 the petitioner and it is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer submits that it is a fact that Police had received information that co-accused was indulged in trafficking Ganja and thereafter raid was conducted in the house of the co- accused Sidheshwar Ram and he disclosed the name of the petitioner and he stated that Ganja was supplied by the petitioner. After seizing Ganja from the house of Sidheshwar Ram a raiding party visited the house of the petitioner from where certain quantity of Ganja was recovered, however petitioner was not present at the time of search.

In view of specific accusation that the petitioner was involved in trafficking of Ganja , there is no question for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T