IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1653 of 2010 PAPPU RAI, Son of Chulai Rai, resident of Village- Bhasingpur Tola, Balinpur, P.S. Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.4170 of 2010 RAM BABU MAHTO, Son of Bal Govind Mahto, resident ofVillage- Nonpur, P.S. Teghra, District- Begusarai Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 15-03-2010 Since both the Bail petitions arise out of the same F.I.R., they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur and Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai , learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Both the petitioners, who are in custody in connection with Barauni Rail P.S. Case No.53 of 2009 arising out of N.D.P.S. Case No.7 of 2009 for offences under Sections 328,307,379 and 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ram Babu Mahto while pressing this bail petition submits that no role - 2 - against this petitioner has been attributed save and except that he had carried tea from tea-stall and a cup of tea was handed over to one of the co-accused . So far petitioner Pappu Rai is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was having a railway ticket from Barauni to Hajipur and only on suspicion he was apprehended by the police. Learned Addl. P.P. , while opposing the bail petition, submits that both the petitioners along with other co-accused persons were arrested by the police on Railway Platform when a trap was led to apprehend the offenders who were indulged in administering drugs to the passengers. In the said trap both the petitioners besides two other accused persons were arrested. From the possession of the some of the accused persons drug powder was also recovered and, thereafter the accused persons were taken into custody. In this case, one of the co-accused, namely Babloo Mahto had approached this Court for grant of bail and his prayer for bail was rejected by order dated 23.11.2009 passed in Cr.Misc.No.40338 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to - 3 - distinguish the case of these petitioners with co-accused Babloo Mahto and submits that from his possession , drug powder was recovered. Considering the fact that one of the co-accused has been refused the prayer for bail as also the fact that there is growth in the crime relating to administering drugs to railway passengers, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J)