Dhananjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86155 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-598 Year-2023 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Dhananjay Kumar Son of Birendra Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Near Sahara Bank, North Lakhibagh, P.S. - Muffasil, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Priya Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Vaishali (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 598 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20(b), (ii)(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 30.08.2023 at about 10:00 P.M., when the informant alongwith police party was on night patrolling then he received secret information about some criminal approaching to Patna via Hajipur in I-20 car and as per informant the said car was intercepted. The police apprehended two persons and on search of the car total 4.960 kg ganja was recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86155 of 2024(2) dt.17-12-2024 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that petitioner is implicated in the present case is for the reason that he is the owner of the said vehicle. He further submits that petitioner's name has transpired in this case only on the basis of disclosure made by other co-accused, namely, Chandan Kumar and Piku Kumar. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T