Siko Yadav @ Sikendar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67727 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2022 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== SIKO YADAV @ SIKENDAR YADAV S/O Rameshwar Yadav R/O VillageAshoghat, P.O- Bishnupur Ashoghat, P.S- Sahebpur Kamal, DistrictBegusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anshu Dhar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-03-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 40 of 2022, arising out of S. Kamal P.S. Case No. 251 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20, 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. As per allegation, the informant, who is Police Officer, apprehended the petitioner and his associates Kailash Yadav, who were travelling by a motorcycle with a bag. 5 kg of ganja was recovered from their possession.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent. Nothing was recovered from his possession.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67727 of 2022(3) dt.28-03-2023 2/2 He was not the owner of that motorcycle. The investigating authorities have submitted charge-sheet, without obtaining FSL report.

On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was caught redhanded with 5 kg of ganja. He is a person of criminal background. He is involved in some serious offences, including the similar nature of case as well as under Section 302 of the IPC.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him bail, which is hereby rejected. If the trial is not concluded within a period of nine months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Kundan/Nirmal U T