Oral order rejecting petitioner's application for anticipatory bail regarding seizure of Ganja, finding insufficient material to support claim of vehicle sale despite coaccused's stand.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31400 of 2013 ====================================================== Bali Ram Sharma .... .... Petitioner. Versus The Union Of India Through The Commissioner, Custom Department, Patna .... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 4 11-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The allegation relates to recovery of five packets each containing 11 kgs (in all weighing 55 Kgs.) of Nepali Ganja from a Mahindra Marshal said to belong to the petitioner.
The petitioner had come up before this Court on an earlier occasion when he had moved for anticipatory bail in Cr.Misc. No.19453 of 2013 which was, however, rejected vide order dated 23.05.2013 by a detailed and reasoned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that coaccused Chaman Lal who claims to have purchased the vehicle from the petitioner has since moved an anticipatory bail petition in which he has taken the stand of having purchased the vehicle from the petitioner, thus supporting the petitioner’s claim.
Apart from the stand of Chaman Lal in his anticipatory bail petition, however, there is no material on record
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31400 of 2013 (4) dt.11-09-2013
2/2
to show as a result of any investigation by any competent authority to support the petitioner’s claim of having sold and parted with possession of the vehicle in question. This Court finds no reason to take a different view than the one expressed in Cr.Misc. No.19453 of 2013 only on the basis of the document now relied upon by the petitioner.
The application is accordingly rejected.
(Vikash Jain, J)
AnilKrSinha/-
Bali Ram Sharma
The Union Of India Through The Commissioner, Custom Department, Patna
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
