Harprit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5442 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya ====================================================== Harprit Singh SON OF AVTAR SINGH Ro village -Shivpuri city, Ambala City, PS -Baldev Nagar, Dist -Ambala Haryana ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 05-04-2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Excise Case No.(NDPS) 70 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 8/20(b) II, C of the NDPS Act. 3.

As per FIR, there is recovery of 144 k.g.

Ganja from a truck bearing registration no.HR37D7783. 4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case, where, petitioner is driver of the said truck. It is submitted that recovery of alleged recovery of Ganja was not made from conscious physical possession of this petitioner rather same was recovered from the alleged truck and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5442 of 2024(3) dt.05-04-2024 2/2 he has no concerned with the alleged Ganja as well as said truck. It is further submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and he is in custody since 19.09.2021. 5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the quantity of recovered Ganja is more than commercial quantity.

6.

In view of the submissions and allegation, as made above, as it appears from seizure list that the alleged recovery was made from conscious physical possession of this petitioner and the recovered quantity of Ganja is more than commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

8.

Learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of this case, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U T