Taslim Mansur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79489 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2024 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Taslim Mansur Son of Rajaak Mansur Resident of Village- Mahinathpur, P.S.- Basopatti, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Basopatti P.S. Case No. 44/2024 registered under Sections 20, 23, 24 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The case of the prosecution is that from the house of the petitioner 128 gms of 'brown sugar', 275 gms of 'ganja', 49 gms of 'hashish', 217 bottles of New Codiwell Cough syrup (100 ml), 120 bottles of Exiplon Cough syrup (100 ml) 88 bottles of Rexcof-DX cough Syrup (100 ml), 184 capsules of Cap. Spasmo Prxyvon and 90 tablets of Nitrosum (10 mg each) and 117 tablets of Nitravet (10 mg each) and Indian and Nepali currency were recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79489 of 2024(3) dt.25-02-2025 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case due to diry village politics. Moreover, petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.07.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has three criminal antecedent and one of them is of similar in nature. It is further submitted that the quantity of syrup which has been recovered from the house of the petitioner is more than commercial quantity. As such, petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submission put forward by the parties, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail for the present which is accordingly rejected.

7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after one year, if the trial is not concluded. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U