Domi Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75604 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Domi Kumar Yadav S/O Nawal Kishore Yadav R/O Village- Khari, Warde No. 14, P.S- Murliganj, Distt.- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Pooja Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 382 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b), (c), 22(b), (c), 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per prosecution case, the police has recovered total 110 gram smack, 26.50 liters of illicit liquor as well as 30 pieces of sun fix tube from the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to illegal motive and gains. He further submits that nothing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75604 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 2/3 incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with the seized liquor or the alleged contraband. The petitioner has never indulged either in manufacturing or trading of the illicit liquor. The recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity, and hence, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable in the present case. There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is a non-compliance of Section 103 of the B.N.S.S. which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 02.08.2025 without any rhymes or reason.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Having heard rival contention of both the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail, after framing of charge if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75604 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 3/3 No. 382 of 2025, subject to the following conditions; (i) One of the bailor(s) shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T