Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75103/2024rejected

Laxman Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-12Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75103 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2023 Thana- MAIGRA District- Gaya ====================================================== Laxman Ram Son of Jiyaram @ Jiya Ram R/o- Jaleli Faujdara, Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani, P.S - Dangiyawas, District - Jodhpur (Rajasthan), Pin- 342027 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Diwakar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard Mr. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Maigra P.S. Case No. 27 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 22.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

3. Recovery is of 2299.400 gm of contraband item doda.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits it appears from the F.I.R as well as seizure list that altogether 2299.400 gm of contraband item was recovered from the vehicle in question.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75103 of 2024(5) dt.12-05-2025 2/2 He further submits that the petitioner has already sold the said vehicle in question in the year 2023 itself and therefore, he has no concern at all from the alleged recovery of the contraband as mentioned aforesaid.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the recovered contraband is more than the commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act., and as per allegation the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Maigra P.S. Case No. 27 of 2023 pending in the court of Sessions Judge cum Special Judge NDPS Act, Gaya.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T