Madan Dey v. Union Of India Through Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70567 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2023 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna ====================================================== Madan Dey Son of Late Sibu Dey @ Shibu Dey Resident of School Tilla, Opposite Sangati English School, Village-Sachindra Nagar Colony, SubDivision, P.S-Jirania, West Tripura Tripura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Union of India through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.K.N.Singh(A.S.G.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short 'D.R.I.') and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Patna Unit Case No. 16/ 2023-24 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. As per the prosecution case, 306 gm of heroine was recovered from the accused persons out of which 73.2 gm was recovered from the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned counsel further submits that out of ten witnesses five witnesses
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70567 of 2025(3) dt.19-12-2025 2/2 have been examined. Learned counsel further submits that he has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 03.11.2023. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner on the ground that huge quantity of heroine was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the D.R.I. submits that the remaining witnesses will be examined on the date fixed and the trial shall not be delayed by the D.R.I.
7. Considering the huge quantity of recovery, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T