Dismissed

Bhona Saw @ Bhonu Saw @ Bhonu Shah v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Sept 2023CR. MISC./27876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench of Hon'ble Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma refused bail to the petitioner charged with drug offenses (NDPS Act and IPC) following recovery of 74.500 kg of Ganja. The court held that commercial quantity recovery does not prove lack of knowledge and bail is restricted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail is refused; petitioner not enlarged on bail.

Bhona Saw @ Bhonu Saw @ Bhonu Shah Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27876 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2022 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali

¶3

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

¶4

Bhona Saw @ Bhonu Saw @ Bhonu Shah S/o Rajendra Saw R/o villageChandpura, P.S.-Raghopur, District-Vaishali at Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Parihar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶6

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶7

5 13-09-2023

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶9

APP for the State.

¶10

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 10.09.2022 in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 281 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 414/341 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20(b) (ii) (C) /23(C) /27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

¶11

Recovery is of 74.500 kg of Ganja.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶13

petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that as per the allegation in the F.I.R. altogether 74.500 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the tempo in question and the petitioner was found running out from

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27876 of 2023(5) dt.13-09-2023 2/3

¶15

the said tempo. He further submits that the co-accused namely, Krishna Kumar has disclosed that the petitioner was running out from the tempo and he was accompanied with the petitioner. He further submits that there is non-compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

¶16

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that altogether 74.500 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the tempo in question and the F.S.L. report also confirms that the recovered contraband is Ganja and the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Krishna Kumar has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 28.04.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 609 of 2023. He further submits that the recovered contraband is more than the commercial quantity, so there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶17

The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Section 37 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

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27876 of 2023(5) dt.13-09-2023 3/3

¶19

offence.

¶20

The issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶21

Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Rajesh and Ors. reported in (2020) 12 SCC, 122 as well as in the case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444 and Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3456 dated 28.03.2023.

¶22

The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja recovered would not justify that the petitioner had no knowledge of the narcotic nor there is any material to substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence in the event of release.

¶23

Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 281 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1^st Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶24

Prayer is refused.

¶25

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶26

Vanisha/-

¶27

U T

Bhona Saw @ Bhonu Saw @ Bhonu Shah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhona Saw @ Bhonu Saw @ Bhonu Shah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manprit Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Das @ Amrosh Das Vs The State of Bihar

Indal Kumar Chaudhari Vs The State of Bihar

Saddam Nut Vs The State of Bihar