Suresh Kumar v. Union Of India Through Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15704 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2022 Thana- D.R.I District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Suresh Kumar Son of Chatar Singh Resident of Village- Jandali Khurd @ Jandli Khurd, P.S.- Bhuna, District- Fatehabad, State- Haryana ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Union of India through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence India ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yugal Kishore For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. K.N. Singh (Asg) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf of the DRI.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with DRI Case No. 01 of 2022 arising out of NDPS Case No. 208 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Prosecution case relates to recovery of 236.520 kgs of Ganja like narcotics substance from the truck and petitioner is said to be owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle who apprehended on spot with the vehicle.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15704 of 2024(5) dt.28-06-2024 2/3 that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.05.2022.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the DRI has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the recovered ganja like substance from the truck is huge in quantity and the same is much more than commercial quantity as per NDPS Act. Petitioner is owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle from where the recovery has been made. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

From perusal of the trial court report in respect of conclusion of trial dated 18th May 2024 wherein it is mentioned that the trial will be concluded in 5 months. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within the stipulated period of time as mentioned in its report failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15704 of 2024(5) dt.28-06-2024 3/3 prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T