Mantu Rai @ Ajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58386 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2022 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== MANTU RAI @ AJIT KUMAR S/O SRI MOHAN RAI Resident of villageBaruhi, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-12-2022 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahar P.S. Case No.51 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.03.2022 at about 3.15 P.M., the informant received confidential information that one Kushmesh Rai in his house was selling heroin and upon this information, informant raided the house of Kushmesh Rai. Upon search 8.97 gram of heroin was recovered from possession of said Kushmesh Rai. The apprehended accused disclosed that the petitioner has supplied him the narcotics for being sold in the market.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58386 of 2022(2) dt.22-12-2022 2/2 present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that on the basis of confessional statement of the apprehended accused, the petitioner is made accused in the present case. It is submitted that there is land dispute between the petitioner and apprehended accused, Kushmesh Rai, therefore, the apprehended accused, Kushmesh Rai has implicated this petitioner in a false case.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T