Dhananjay Kumar v. The Union Of India Through The Chief Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76361 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2013 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== DHANANJAY KUMAR Son of Dhruv Narayan Prasad @ Dhruv Prasad Resident of Village - Ramgarhwa, P.S.- Ramgarhwa, Distt - East Champaran, Bihar - 845434 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union Of India Through The Chief Commissioner Customs, 4th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna - 800001.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Kaushik For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha & Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Customs (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 19 of 2013-14 registered for the offence punishable under sections 20, 23, 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The present case has been lodged after about 6 months of the alleged occurrence. Petitioner is not the owner of the motorcycle in question from which the alleged recovery was made. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76361 of 2019(3) dt.06-02-2020 2/2 possession of this petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal history.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused and during investigation materials have come showing complicity of this petitioner in the alleged crime. He, therefore, submits that petitioner does not deserves to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T