Allowed

Ramprit @ Prit Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Jan 2021CR. MISC./24806/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna granted regular bail to the petitioner in connection with a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case. The court noted the petitioner was named only on suspicion, had no criminal antecedents, and the FIR lacked specific land distinction. Bail was granted on deposit of cash and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on deposit of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount each.

Ramprit @ Prit Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24806 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2019 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

Ramprit @ Prit Yadav, son of Radhey Yadav Resident of Village- Jaigir, P.S.Barachatti, District- Gaya.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

The Union of India through Narcotics Commissioner, New Delhi India, New Delhi

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 04-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None

¶11

appears on behalf of opposite parties.

¶12

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 50 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 8, 15, 18(e) and 25 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that petitioner has been made accused in the instant case only on suspicion. He further

¶14

submits that the case of the prosecution is that some

¶15

lands of village-Jaigir were used for cultivating opium

¶16

posta but distinction of the land has not specifically been

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24806 of 2020(3) dt.04-01-2021 2/2

¶18

mentioned in the F.I.R. Moreover, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he was not named in the F.I.R.

¶19

Considering the fact that petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent, the F.IR is against unknown and there is no distinction of land in the F.I.R over which

¶20

opium is claimed to have been cultivated, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on deposit of cash of Rs. 50,000/-. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/(Rupees fifty thousands) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessionscum-Special Judge, Gaya in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 50 of 2019.

¶21

The deposit of cash of Rs. 50,000/- shall abide by the final outcome of the present pending criminal case.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶23

Shageer/-

¶24

U T

Ramprit @ Prit Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramprit @ Prit Yadav 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

Rahul Kiran Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Sharma @ Santosh Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Yadav @ Rajiv Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

Sarfaraz Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Sajid Vs The State of Bihar

Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Viru Don Vs the State of Bihar