Dismissed

Veeresh v. The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb), Patna

Patna HC14 Dec 2022CR. MISC./13259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected the bail plea of a petitioner accused of driving a vehicle involved in the recovery of commercial quantity of opium. The court relied on the NDPS Act's bail restrictions and referenced Supreme Court precedent, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. Trial directed to be concluded within nine months.

Veeresh Vs The Union of India through the Intelligence… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13259 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

VEERESH S/o Raj Pal R/o village- Rampur, Bujurag Aonia, P.S.- Bhamora, District- Barely (Uttar Pradesh)

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Patna Bihar

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.S.D. Sanjay (Sr. Adv.) For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh (C.G.C.) ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

5 14-12-2022

¶11

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with N.C.B. Case No.14 of 2020 arising out of N.D.P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C)/18/25/27A/28/29/35 and 59 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

¶15

As per prosecution case, there is alleged recovery of 15 KG opium from Innova car and Hundai Car in question. The petitioner is alleged to be the driver of Innova Car in question and he along with one Umesh Prasad is apprehended from Innova Car in question and two other co-accused persons

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13259 of 2022(5) dt.14-12-2022 2/4

¶17

were apprehended from Hundai Car in question.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2020. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel further submits that it is alleged that 5 Kg opium is recovered from Innova car in question and 10 Kg opium is recovered from Hundai car in question but as per allegation of prosecution out of 16 packets only 6 packets were seized from Innova car in question and all the 16 packets were mixed and marked as P-1 to P-16 and prosecution failed to clarify that out of 16 packets which packets were recovered from Innova Car in question and it is also not ascertain that packets markds as P-1 to P-6 or P-11 to P-16 or any other like packets P-7, P-8, P-9 or P-10 were the packets seized from Innova car in question.

¶19

The learned C.G.C. on behalf of Union of India vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. He further submits that 15 KG opium were allegedly recovered from two vehicles during the course of same transaction as per written report of the informant which is more than commercial quantity. Petitioner was apprehended on spot, on the said ground the petitioner does not deserve bail.

¶20

As per Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 commercial quantity of opium is 2.5 KG

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13259 of 2022(5) dt.14-12-2022 3/4

¶22

and the small quantity of opium is 25gm but the recovery in the present case is of 15 KG opium which is more than commercial quantity.

¶23

The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery of commercial quantity of Narcotic is circumscribed under Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which says that before grant of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.

¶24

The issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Rajesh and Ors. , reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 .

¶25

The FSL report dated 04.12.2020 also confirms that the substance is opium. The recovery of commercial quantity of opium as alleged in the story of prosecution would not justify that the petitioner had no knowledge of narcotic nor there is any material to substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence in the event of release.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner coupled with FSL report and also taking into consideration the materials

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13259 of 2022(5) dt.14-12-2022 4/4

¶28

available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the present petitioner stands rejected.

¶29

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶30

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶31

amitkr/-

¶32

Veeresh v. The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb), Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeresh v. The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb), Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar @ Satish Kumar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rajan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Prasad Singh @ Umesh Pal Singh Vs the Union of India through Ncb, Patna

Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Ranbir Yadav Vs the State of Bihar