Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 102001 (PAT)

Nandu Yadav v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./45297/2025 · 2025-11-15

Rajiv Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45297 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2025 Thana- Haraiya District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1. Nandu Yadav Son of Chokat Yadav Village- Bhaluwaha PS- Haraiya, Dist- East Champaran 2. Chokat yadav Son of Late Ramdhyan Yadav Village- Bhaluwaha PS- Haraiya, Dist- East Champaran ... ... petitioners/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the petitioners/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Barnwal, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 5 15-11-2025 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners are in custody in connection with Haraiya P.S. Case No. 17 of 2025 for the offence punishable under sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c), 23(c) and 29 of NDPS Act lodged on 14.02.2025 by the informant, Anjan Kumar. 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that during patrolling, the petitioners were intercepted and though they tried to throw the sack and escape, were apprehended. There is recovery/seizure of 48.19 kg ganja and 21.836 kg ganja from the two sacks. This led to the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they reside nearby, someone threw the sacks, the Police has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45297 of 2025(5) dt.15-11-2025 2/2 implicated them. 5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the recovered/seized material is above the commercial quantity. 6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts/allegation, the recovered/seized ganja is/are much above commercial quantity, in that background, this Court is not inclined to extend them the privilege of bail which is accordingly, rejected. 7. However, having rejected the bail application, this Court cannot take its eyes away from the fact that the petitioners are in custody from 15.02.2025. As such, they are entitled to an early trial. 8. The Trial Court is accordingly directed to look into the matter and see to it that the same is disposed of within a period of one year. Vijay Singh/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T