Geeta Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66175 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-988 Year-2024 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Geeta Devi W/o Rameshwar Chaudhary @ Rameshwar Chaudhari R/oThana Road Ambedkar Nagar, Jehanabad, P.S.- Jehanabad, DistrictJehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Mungeshwar Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 988 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, there is recovery of 5 gram smack from the possession of co-accused, namely, Sunny, who disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of the associates of the syndicate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66175 of 2025(2) dt.12-09-2025 2/3 smack. The alleged recovery has been made from the possession of co-accused, namely, Sunny, who disclosed the name of the petitioner and the same has got no evidentiary value. The petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2025 and has got one criminal antecedent in which she has been granted bail. The recovered contraband is not more than small quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26690 of 2025. He further submits that the co-accused Sunny Kumar and Daulati Devi have also been granted regular bail/anticipatory bail vide orders dated 03.03.2025 and 16.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos.11789 of 2025 & 33411 of 2025 respectively.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard rival contention of both the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody of the petitioner as also the prayer for bail being based on parity, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66175 of 2025(2) dt.12-09-2025 3/3 released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 988 of 2024.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T