Narendra Kumar Singh @ Narendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87048 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-694 Year-2024 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Narendra Kumar Singh @ Narendra Kumar Son of Late Basant Singh Resident of Village - Amara Talab, P.S. - Sasaram Muffasil, District - Rohtas (Sasaram) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the BNSS, 2023') for grant of regular bail in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 694 of 2024, lodged on 20.10.2024 under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. As per the prosecution, total recovery of 2800 pieces of BUPRENORPHINE INJECTION DOLPHINE, containing 2ml each and 60 pieces of PHENIRAMINE MALEATE INJECTION containing 2ml each has been made, which is the subject matter of the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel further submits that the petitioner's name has figured in this case by virtue of the confessional statement of the co-accused.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87048 of 2024(5) dt.05-06-2025 2/2 Counsel further submits that the seized quantity is more than the small quantity but less than the commercial quantity. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.10.2024, having clean criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the light of the decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the entire quantity amounts to more than the commercial quantity.

6. Upon a specific query of the Court as to whether the charge has been framed in this case or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed in this case.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail two months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Siddharth Sagar/- U T