Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61080 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2024 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Yadav Son of Ramdeo Yadav R/o VillageDhangai, P.S.- Dhangai, District- Gaya (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 15 of 2024 dated 21.02.2024 registered under Sections 8, 15, 18(c), 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. The prosecution case as per the first information report is that on 31.01.2024 when the team constituted for the purpose of destroying opium reached the Kadal forest area, the team found cultivation of opium in various plots admeasuring 2.3 acres, which has been declared as protected forest as per government notification upon which the team kept some samples as material exhibits for the purpose of evidence and destroyed rest of the opium crop by JCB and tractor. It has further been alleged that the name of the petitioner has been disclosed by the local villagers upon inquiry made by the Police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61080 of 2024(4) dt.20-01-2025 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village politics and the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of disclosure made by local villagers. He next submits that there is an inordinate delay of 21 days in lodging of the first information report inasmuch as the occurrence took place on 31.01.2024 however the present first information report has been lodged on 21.02.2024. He further submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence.

5. Having regard to the submission made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the fact that anticipatory bail application of similarly situated co-accused / Jagdev Yadav vide Cr. Misc. No. 70364 of 2024 has been rejected by this Court and the fact that the name of the petitioner came to light after inquiry made by the Police for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for the same is rejected. praful/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T