Raju v. The Union Of India Through The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Regional Unit, Muzaffarpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13657 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2022 Thana- D.R.I District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAJU SON OF DHUPCHAND R/O C-5/35, KRITI NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI, PERMANENT R/O VILLAGE- RATANPURWA, P.S.- PURNIYARA, DISTRICT- MAHARAJGANJ (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I. REGIONAL UNIT, MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with D.R.I. Case No. 4 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act. As per allegation, huge quantity of codeine containing cough syrup, Phensedyl was recovered from a truck driven by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is merely truck driver and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He was not aware with the consignment loaded on the truck. He is a person of clean antecedent and he is under custody since 05.08.2022.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13657 of 2023(2) dt.17-05-2023 2/2 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the D.R.I., Patna has submitted that the petitioner was driving that truck without any valid paper. There was no challan at all and the commercial quantity of codeine cough syrup was recovered from that truck. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the commercial quantity of the recovered contraband, it is not an appropriate case for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, charges have been framed. If the trial is not concluded within a period of two years, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T