Patna High Court - Orders
Devendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20727 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2024 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Devendra Yadav S/O Jibachh Yadav @ Jivachh Yadav R/O Village-
Chharapatti, P.S.- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Gangadeo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2025Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is accused in a case registered for the offense punishable under sections 420, 414, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C) 489(D), 489(E)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 08(C) 21(C) 21(B), 22(C) of NDPS Act and Section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act in connection with Jaynagar Police Station Case No. 100 of 2024.
3. As per the allegation in the FIR, informant reported that he received a confidential information that one Devendra Yadav (present petitioner) was in dealing of brown sugar and fake currency after which a raid was conducted by the informant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20727 of 2025(2) dt.18-04-2025 2/2 and other police personnel. On seeing the police party, the petitioner started fleeing but he was caught and on searching 52 grams of brown sugar, 1 digital weighing machine, 1 live round 8mm cartridge, 6 pieces of improvised chillims made by Nepali notes commonly used for in healing brown sugar, Rs.5,110/- Indian Currency Denomination, Rs. 95,410 Nepali Currency Denomination, Rs.7,800/- Indian FICN were recovered form the Almirah of the house of the present petitioner. Four wheeler and motorcycle were also recovered for which no documents were produced and which appeared to be stolen.
4. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Cr. Miscellaneous No.38880 of 2024 and there is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer of bail of this petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the bail application of this petitioner is again rejected.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Harshita/-
U T