Bijay Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1041 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31789 of 2020
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-587 Year-2019 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================

Bijay Yadav, aged about 26 years, Son of Dwarika Yadav, Resident of Village- Baijnathpur, P.S.- Barachatti (Mohanpur), District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State           :       Mr. Nand Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-02-2021

Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Barachatti (Mohanpur) PS Case No. 587 of 2019 dated

02.12.2019, instituted under Sections 8/15/17/18/20/25 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that from his

poultry farm, upon search, 48 kgs. of doda powder (made out of

poppy) was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

recovery was not from the conscious possession of the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31789 of 2020 dt.20-02-2021

and he was not aware as to who had kept the recovered article

there.

5. Learned APP submitted that the article recovered is

banned under the Act and the same being recovered from the

poultry farm of the petitioner, he cannot take defence that he

was unaware or is innocent as the same has to be proved during

trial but for the present, there is a strong presumption of the

involvement of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the

petitioner has another case against him for illegal storage of

mines and minerals.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T