Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22174/2016dismissed

Rakesh Marandi And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-05Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22174 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2008 Thana -AMDABAD District- KATIHAR ======================================================

1. Rakesh Marandi

2. Thakur Marandi Both sons of Late Raghu Marandi resident of village - Jamra Ratanpur Chama Tola, P.S. Amdabad, District - Katihar. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners are languishing in custody since 1.9.2015 in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 15, 18, 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S.Act.

Prosecution case is that SHO, Amdabad Police Station, on the order of the District Magistrate, Katihar went with other officials to village Dilawarpur on 26.2.2008 at 3.00 PM and found the cultivation of poppy plant over 2 Bighas of land and on enquiry he learnt that one Azad is the owner of the land on which plantation was made by one Ismail, whereas on the land of the petitioners Rakesh Marandi and Thakur Marandio plantation was made by one Ajhar.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22174 of 2016 (4) dt.05-08-2016 that that the petitioners have no knowledge about cultivation of poppy by Ajhar though the land was leased out by Ajhar. Statement has been made in paragraph 3 of the application that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Since the case was registered in the year 2008 and the petitioners surrendered in the year 2015, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

The report of the I/c Addl. Sessions Judge II, Katihar reflects that the charge has been framed and the case is pending for examinaiton of prosecution witnesses and up-till-now no witness has been examined due to transfer of the Presiding Officer. The learned Sessions Judge, Katihar is expected to get the trial of the petitioner expedited since the concerned trial court is vacant.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Surendra/- U