Patna High Court - Orders
Dharmendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2024
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80334 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2024 Thana- SARSI District- Purnia
======================================================
Dharmendra Yadav S/O Tej Narayan Yadav R/O Village - Biranchiya, Ward
No - 2, P.S- B Kothi, Distt- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-11-2024Heard Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, APP.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 91 of 2024 arising out Sarsi P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) /21(b) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act, lodged on 05.06.2024 by the informant, Manish Chand Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, police officer, upon information regarding sale/purchase of smack/brown sugar raided the place and there is/are recovery/seizure in the following manner:-
(i) Bijay Kumar Agrawal, 102 Grams smack/brown sugar,
(ii) Rahul Kumar, 102 Grams smack/brown sugar,
(iii) Saurabh Kumar, 102 Grams smack/brown sugar, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80334 of 2024(2) dt.21-11-2024 2/4
(iv) Dharmendra Yadav (petitioner) 06 Grams smack/brown sugar.
4. Thus a total of 312 grams of brown sugar have been shown to be recovered/seized which followed the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the content of the FIR as also the separate seizure list relating to all the four accused clearly show that from the possession of the petitioner, only 06 Grams smack/brown sugar has been recovered which is much below the commercial quantity of 250 Grams and just above the small quantity of 05 Grams. He in custody since 06.06.2024 (para-9 of the petition) having no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that though separate seizure list has been prepared showing 102 Grams smack/brown sugar seizure each relating to three co- accused as also 06 Grams smack/brown sugar from the possession of the petitioner, if the same is totalled, it goes beyond the 250 Grams.
7. Having gone through the facts of the case as also the submissions put forward by the parties, this Court has perused the FIR/seizure list, separate seizure list has been prepared relating to recovery/seizure from all the four accused Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80334 of 2024(2) dt.21-11-2024 3/4 which shows that from this petitioner, there is recovery/seizure of only 06 Grams smack/brown sugar which is below the commercial quantity, he in custody since 06.06.2024 having no criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of bail. However, if it is found that the petitioner has criminal antecedent, the order shall become infructuous.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Purnea in connection with aforesaid P.S. Case subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailors should be the family member of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every month for next one year to mark his attendance;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80334 of 2024(2) dt.21-11-2024 4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J) perwez U T