Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20064/2020rejected

Ejajul Shaikh v. The Union Of India Through Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Patna, Bihar

2020-10-07Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20064 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2015 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna ====================================================== EJAJUL SHAIKH Son of Babar Ali Shaikh Resident of Village - Baranaladaha Purbapara, Varandaha, Tehatta, P.S. and Distt. - Nadia, West Bengal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, PATNA, BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv.

Mr.Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. K.N. Singh, (A.S.G) Mr. Ratnesh, A. A.S.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 22 of 2015 (Arising out of F. No. DRI/LZU/PRU/718(ii)ENQ-21/15) registered for the offence under Sections 21/29 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38794 of 2019 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20064 of 2020(3) dt.07-10-2020 2/2 from the date of order but the trial is still pending before the court below and the same is not likely to be concluded in near future. Therefore, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail as he has been languishing in judicial custody since11.09.2015.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that no fresh ground is made out to entertain the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarge on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of six months form the date of this order.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T