Pravin Kumar Mandal @Pravin Kr. Mandal @ Pravin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37302 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2016 Thana -TARABARI District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Pravin Kumar Mandal @ Pravin Kr. Mandal @ Pravin son of Kamlu Mandal resident of Village- Kuari, Police Station- Kuari (Kursakanta), District- Araria.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39085 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2016 Thana -TARABARI District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Chamru Singh Son of late Bajrangi Singh, resident of Village- Khari Tola Dabhara, Police Station- Tarabari, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.37302 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Vikramdeo Singh Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar 2 (In Cr.Misc. No.39085 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Vikramdeo Singh Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

24-11-2016 Since in both the petitions, petitioner(s) are in custody in Tarabari P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 20, 22, 23 & 24 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, both the petitions were heard together.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37302 of 2016 (2) dt.24-11-2016 2/2 Heard the parties.

In 1st case i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 37302 of 2016, there is allegation that 30 Kg. of Ganja has been recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner (Pravin Kumar Mandal). It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being driver was not knowing that in his vehicle, such huge quantity of Ganja was kept. He further submits that Ganja was being carried by one of the co-accused without the knowledge of the petitioner as such, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In 2nd case i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 39085 of 2016 also, there is allegation that petitioner (Chamru Singh) was occupant of the vehicle, from which, said Ganja was recovered. Same plea was taken by learned counsel for the petitioner in this case also that petitioner was not aware about the carrying of such Ganja. However, after going through the F.I.R. and considering the recovery of huge quantity of Ganja, there is no reason to extend the privilege of bail.

Both the petitions stand dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T