Shankar Ram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67928 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-551 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Shankar Ram Yadav son of Sildhar Yadav resident of Vill.- Mudapada, P.S.- Pathalgaon, Distt.- Jashpura, Chattisgarh ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Nikita Mittal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-10-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Madhya Nishedh Excise Case No. 551 of 2024, lodged on 06.06.2024, under Sections 20B/22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner with allegation that he was carrying six bundles of Ganja weighting 6 Kgs below his seat in a bus.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in custody since 07.06.2024. Counsel submits that Ganja has not been recovered from his possession; rather it has been recovered below the seat.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67928 of 2024(2) dt.01-10-2024 2/2 He further submits that the said quantity of Ganja is not commercial quantity rather it is more than small quantity.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the content of the FIR it becomes crystal clear that the said Ganja has been recovered just below his seat and his gesture and posture as indicated in the FIR indicates that he was in possession of Ganja. Counsel further submits that it is the N.D.P.S. material though it is less than commercial quantity but higher than the small quantity.

6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail three months after framing of the charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T