Manji Sah @ Manji Gaud @ Manji Gond @ Manjay Gond v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65361 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-508 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== Manji Sah @ Manji Gaud @ Manji Gond @ Manjay Gond S/O Late Baidhnath Sah Resident of village - Choranti, Police Station- Dawath, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Excise Sadar Gaya P.S. Case No. 508 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 52.680 Kg of Ganja from a mini truck and the petitioner was arrested on spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65361 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026 2/2 possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of Ganja. It is further submitted that the petitioner is driver of the vehicle in question. The petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

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 and the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

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) Rajorshi/- U T