Sanoj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61721 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2025 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sanoj Kumar Singh S/o Late Kashi Nath Singh R/o Village- Kanjar, PSKochas, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dehri (Town) P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that, on secret information, police intercepted a white pickup truck near Laxmi TVS, Pali Road and apprehended driver Sanoj Kumar, petitioner herein, and co-passenger Satyam Rai and a recovery of 275 Kilograms of majijuana was also made from the said truck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2025 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61721 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 2/2 has got one criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits the recovery has been made from the truck and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner works as a driver of the vehicle concerned at a monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/- and has no knowledge regarding the goods loaded in the vehicle.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T