Allowed

Pandav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC14 Jan 2020CR. MISC./68295/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail order concerned a petitioner in NDPS custody. The court noted that while earlier bail was denied due to recovery findings, the sachets were recovered from a vehicle parked near the petitioner's home, not from his possession or belongings. Being a first-time offender, the petitioner was released on bail with a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of similar amount.

Pandav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68295 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2018 Thana- MAHESHKHUNT District- Khagaria

¶3

======================================================

¶4

PANDAV KUMAR Son of Jai Jai Ram Yadav @ Jai Ram Yadav Resident of Village - Madarpur Near Railway Durga Asthan, P.S.- Maheshkhunt, Distt - Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 14-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶12

The petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2018 in connection with Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018 for the offence registered under Sections 8/20 (b) (ii) (c) /25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 14.03.2019 on the presumption that since the sachets of ganja were recovered from near the house of the petitioner, the petitioner had a direct role in the case. It is further submitted that actually the alleged recoveries were made from the vehicle which was parked near the house of the petitioner but not from

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68295 of 2019(2) dt.14-01-2020 2/2

¶15

the conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has nothing to do with the vehicle in question as the same does not belong to him nor is he any way associated with the person to whom the vehicle belongs.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody and also because the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge 3^rd cum Spl. Judge, NDPS, Khagaria in connection with Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018.

¶17

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶18

Jagdish/-

¶19

U T

Pandav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandav 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

Arjun Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Pinki Kumari @ Pinki Devi, Vs The State of Bihar

Basuki Nath Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Babita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeev Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Sohail Ansari Vs The State of Bihar