Md. Badru @ Md. Badrujama v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84492 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2024 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Md. Badru @ Md. Badrujama Son of Late Md. Maccho @ Abdul Majid Resident of village- Fatehpur Mukeri Tola P.S.- Industrial Area, DistrictBhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 21 (1) (a), 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 18 (c) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant received secret information that the petitioner is selling intoxicant medicine from his house. On the basis of the information, he conducted raid at the house of petitioner. After seeing the police, he managed to escape. After that raid was made and altogether 19 bottles Codiwell Cough Syrup and 13 Strip Nitzascan-10 Tablets have been recovered. Hence, the present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84492 of 2024(3) dt.18-03-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted from perusal of the seizure, that the seizure has been made over the roof of the house of the petitioner. Further submission is that nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.08.2024 having no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail stating that 19 bottles of codiwell cough syrup each of 100 ml is equal to 1900 ml has been recovered from the house of the petitioner which is more than commercial quantity and as such, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions put forward by the parties, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly, rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T