Allowed

Shakeel Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Apr 2022CR. MISC./55297/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants regular bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case. The court found the drug quantity was not commercial and noted a co-accused had secured bail. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a bond with two sureties and comply with specific conditions regarding trial cooperation and witness contact.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions against threatening witnesses and cooperating in the trial.

Shakeel Ansari Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55297 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2020 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Shakeel Ansari, Son of Kalimullah Ansari, Resident of Village- Kaudihar Chawk (Chota Pareuwa) P.S.- Raxaul Dist.- East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 04-04-2022

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to

¶13

remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020, arising out of Raxaul P.S. Case No. 342 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 27, 27A, 27b(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 22B of the NDPS Act.

¶16

As per the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., on information having been received, a raid was conducted and medicines containing sedative were recovered from E-Rikshaw and two persons on the E-Rikshaw including this petitioner

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55297 of 2021(2) dt.04-04-2022 2/3

¶18

were taken into custody.

¶19

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is not the case of the prosecution that narcotic substance in commercial quantity claimed to be seized from the possession of this petitioner. It is further submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted, at best it is a case that the petitioner was found in possession of drugs without license. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 11.09.2020.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that coaccused, namely, Rakesh Mahto, who was also apprehended by the police, has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 22566 of 2021 vide order dated 28.01.2022. A copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is kept on record.

¶21

On the other hand, learned APP opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that huge quantity of sedative medicines were recovered.

¶22

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record that the sedative medicines containing narcotic which is not in commercial quantity and further the co-accused has

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55297 of 2021(2) dt.04-04-2022 3/3

¶24

already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2020, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, -cum- Special Judge, NDPS Act, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020, arising out of Raxaul P.S. Case No. 342 of 2020, with the following conditions:-

¶25

(I) The petitioner/accused should not extend any threat, promise of inducement to the persons acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶26

(ii) The petitioner/accused should cooperate the trial court in expeditious disposal of the trial against him.

¶27

(iii) The petitioner/accused should not contact the members of the prosecuting party as well as witnesses in this case in any manner till conclusion of the trial.

¶28

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶29

uday/-

¶30

Shakeel Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ansari 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

Sudhanshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vishal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Kailash Paswan @ Kailu Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Md. Safardar Ali@ Safdar Ali Vs The State of Bihar