Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46968/2017dismissed

Rakesh Mahto v. Union Of India Through Intelligence Officer, Patna Zonal Unit, Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry O

2017-11-22Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46968 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2015 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rakesh Mahto S/o Yogendra Mahto, Resident of village- Dharam Nagar, P.S.- Mahuawa, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

Union of India through Intelligence officer, Patna Zonal Unit, Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh. Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2017 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Central Government Counsel.

This is second attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2015 in N.D.P.S. Case No.66 of 2015(arising out of NCB/PZU/Cr.No.7 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. In the case, there was recovery of Heroin and, as such, on merit, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on 23.11.2016 vide Cr.Misc.No.35163 of 2016. After filing of the present bail petition, a report was called for, which has been received and kept at Flag-A. The report makes it clear that the evidence is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46968 of 2017(4) dt.22-11-2017 2/2 going on and out of seven witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined.

Considering the fact that the evidence is going on, there is no reason to review of my earlier order. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected.

Since the petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2015, while dismissing, it is desirable to observe that the learned trial court as well as prosecution may take appropriate steps, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. (Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T