Raju Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83457 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-658 Year-2023 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== Raju Kushwaha Son of Late Asharfi Kushwaha Resident of village -Chamapur , P.S. - Ramgharwa , At present Resident of Village - Koiriya Tola ,P.S. - Sabiyata Nagar, Ward No.- 24 ,P.S.- Raxaul , District -East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 658 of 2023 (N.D.P.S G.R. Case No.99 of 2023) lodged on 28.11.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act read with sections 25(1-b)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13468 of 2024. Counsel submits that bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected on the ground that criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there are two criminal cases pending against him. Counsel further submits that though, in this case, Arms Act and N.D.P.S. Act both are added, but recovery has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83457 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2025 2/2 been made only under Arms Act, therefore, petitioner is not responsible for N.D.P.S. offence and is responsible only for Arms Act. Counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2023.

4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected on merit and from the allegations, it transpires that both accused persons are in connivance with each other and with one person, there was charas and with the petitioner, katta was there. There are no separate case and one trial is going on.

5. In the present facts and circumstances of this case, it transpires to this Court that criminal antecedent of the petitioner is relating to N.D.P.S. Act and in the light of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T