Krishna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.609 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2022 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== KRISHNA KUMAR SON OF LATE RAMVRIKSH RAY R/O VILL.- MOHANPUR, P.S.- RAGHOPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI, INDIA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anish Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-04-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 281 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/23(c)/27(d) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

As per allegation, having seen the police party, the persons, who were sitting in a tempo coming from opposite side, began to flee away. After a little chase, the petitioner was nabbed, whereas the other co-accused persons became successful in fleeing away. 74.500kg of ganja was recovered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.609 of 2023(3) dt.28-04-2023 2/2 from that tempo. The search was conducted in presence of Block Development Officer.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He is not the owner of that tempo, wherefrom the alleged ganja was recovered.

On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner, along with other co-accused persons was carrying ganja in commercial quantity and he was arrested at the spot. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges for bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/Kundan U T