Anil Kumar v. The Union Of India, Through The Director N.D.P.S. Govt. Of India, New Delhi And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.60056 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 2016 Thana -KATIHAR (R.T) District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Anil Kumar, S/o Shiv Shankar Sah, R/o Village- Sohni Patti, P.S.- Sarimpur, District- Buxar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, Through the Director N.D.P.S. Govt. of India, New Delhi,
2. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sri Ram Anurag Singh, APP For DRI : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02/ 12-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act The prosecution case is that one Md. Sohail Ahmad was apprehended by the RPF Personnel from Train No. 12423 Rajdhani Express near Barsoi and from the said person 25 kgs. of ganja were recovered and accordingly, the FIR was registered. Subsequently, during course of investigation apprehended accused named this petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60056 of 2017 (2) dt.12-12-2017 2/3 petitioner that admittedly the recovery has not been made from the petitioner and that he has been made an accused on the basis of the statement made by the apprehended accused, subsequently, during investigation, which is nothing but an attempt by the prosecuting agency to maliciously implicate the petitioner, since, had the apprehended accused disclosed the name of the petitioner immediately on being apprehended, then the petitioner would had been named in the FIR. A statement has been made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent.
Learned APP submits that the petitioner's name sprang up on the statement of apprehended accused from whose recovery has been made.
Considering the fact that the recovery has not been made from the petitioner and statement has been made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in connection with Katihar Rail P.S.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60056 of 2017 (2) dt.12-12-2017 3/3 Case No. 07 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the petitioner shall be accepted on filing affidavit that the petitioner will regularly cooperate in the investigation. The non-cooperation in investigation will give liberty to the prosecution agency to file appropriate application before the learned Court below for cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T