Ranjit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37647 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -18 Year- 2013 Thana -BIHTA District- PATNA ====================================================== Ranjit Yadav Son of - Bijendra Yadav, resident of Village- Nagahar, P.S.- Bikram, P.O- Bikram, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar-II Mr. Apurva Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.
08-11-2016 Heard Sri Manish Kumar-II, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Apurva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned Addl. P.P. The sole petitioner, who apprehends his arrest in Bihta P.S. Case No. 18 of 2013, which was registered in the year 2013, has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the year 2016. The case was registered under Sections 20, 27 and 32 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He submits that his name has come only on disclosure made by co-accused, who was arrested by the police with small quantity of smack. He further submits that on disclosure made by
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37647 of 2016 (2) dt.08-11-2016 2/2 the accused, who is brother of the petitioner, a search was conducted in his house and from possession of the wife of petitioner, further recovery of smack was made. He submits that it is small quantity and that too was not recovered from the petitioner. He submits that other two accused persons i.e. brother of the petitioner and wife of the petitioner have already been granted bail.
Keeping in view nature of accusation as well as the fact that petitioner was made accused in the year 2013 itself, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. Dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T