Sohan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19335 of 2017 (2) dt.19-05-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19335 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -166 Year- 2016 Thana -SULTANGANG District- PATNA ====================================================== Sohan Yadav Son of Late Pitamber Yadav, resident of Mohalla - Tekari Road, P.S. Sultangtanj, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad For the Union of India : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 166 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 22 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.

Allegedly, acting on a tip off that the petitioner is indulged in dealing with Ganja and has kept Ganja in Cow dung cake, raid was conducted but the petitioner succeeded in fleeing away and in presence of the witnesses from the Cow dung cakes of the petitioner total 17 kg and 150 grams Ganja was recovered. Submission is of false implication and that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner or from his house, admittedly, the premises from where the alleged

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19335 of 2017 (2) dt.19-05-2017 recovery was made is disputed land and several persons opened Kathal there, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner, the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed, there is no signature of the petitioner on the seizure list.

Learned APP seriously opposes the prayer of bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T