Jairam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71080 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2024 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Jairam Yadav S/O Dhadhuri Yadav Resident of Village - Bardih, P.SMadanpur, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Yadavpur P.S. Case No. 156 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 70.990 Kg Ganja from a pick-up vehicle and the petitioner was apprehended on spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71080 of 2025(2) dt.09-10-2025 2/2 also submits that the petitioner is not owner of the vehicle rather he is driver of the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of Ganja. The petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity, hence, there is bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T