Dismissed

Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jun 2017CR. MISC./18003/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral order, the Single Judge of the Patna High Court rejected bail applications filed by Ranjeet Kumar, accused under the NDPS Act for possession of Charas pronounced false implication while awaiting victim's cooperative testimony.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner Ranjeet Kumar in connection with PS Case 37 of 2016.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18003 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -37 Year- 2016 Thana -KANGALI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)

¶3

====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Sah, Resident of Village Murali Parsawni, P.S. Balthar, District- West Champaran.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/ : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Smt. Reena Sinha (APP)

¶5

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER

¶6

4 22-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶7

counsel representing the State.

¶8

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kangli P.S Case No. 37 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii) B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

¶9

Allegedly, 3.400 Kg. of Charas was recovered from the motorcycle of the petitioner which reveals from the paper kept in the motorcycle and the miscreant succeeded in fleeing away.

¶10

Submission is of false implication and that the motorcycle of the petitioner was taken away by Seikh Motor @ Abaidullah Mian, witnesses vide para 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the case diary have stated regarding the same. The petitioner has got no

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18003 of 2017 (4) dt.22-06-2017

¶12

2/2

¶13

concern with the seized articles and from tower location mobile of the Motar @ Abaidullah Mian also it reveals that near the place of occurrence the tower location was found at the time of occurrence. and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

¶14

Learned A.P.P submits that both the petitioner and Motar @ Abaidullah Mian were acquainted with each other and with the knowledge of the petitioner Charas was being transported.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation and alleged recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Kangli P.S. Case No. 37 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran.

¶16

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)

¶17

Rajiv/-

¶18

U T

Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Singh and Ors. Vs Most. Birmati Devi and Ors.

Nilendu Kumar Singh @ Nilendu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Baldeo Singh Bhokta Vs The State Of Bihar

Anil Ravidas Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Abhinandan Kumar @ Rinku Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Vikash Kumar Thakur @ Vikash Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar