Mangal Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70201 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2023 Thana- ISUAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== MANGAL RAI S/O RAMDAHIN RAI R/O AGAUTHAR NANDA, P.SISUAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vishesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 16-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 8/ 20(b)(ii) (B), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. As per FIR, the petitioner was apprehended on the spot with a motorcycle and upon search 4.725 kg ganja was recovered and the petitioner was said to be driver of the alleged motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case by the police due to his criminal antecedents. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery and the vehicle in question does not belong to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70201 of 2023(3) dt.16-01-2024 2/2 him. Both the seizure list witnesses are police personnel which is complete violation of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.08.2023. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR who was arrested on spot with a motorcycle and from whose possession, 4.725 kg ganja like contraband substance was recovered. The petitioner had not given any satisfactory reply regarding seized motorcycle. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also got 11 criminal antecedents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact and gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T