Santosh Roy @ Sanosh Roy v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27305 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-649 Year-2022 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Santosh Roy @ Sanosh Roy Son Of Jattu Ray Resident Of Village- Kala Diara, Ward No. 05, Ps- Salimpur, Distt- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 09-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the N.C.B. and learned APP for the State. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 20(b)(ii) (c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

As per FIR, the petitioner and co-accused persons were apprehended on the spot and upon search total 35.170 kg ganja was recovered from a car bearing Reg. No. AS-01BM3811. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery and the vehicle in question

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27305 of 2023(4) dt.09-10-2023 2/2 does not belong to him. He has got no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 31.07.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the recovery of ganja from the car is alleged to be 35.170 kg which is much more than commercial quantity as per N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioner was also apprehended on spot with the alleged ganja like substance.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact and gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

From perusal of the Progress Report dt. 18.09.2023, it appears that the trial Court had sought six months time to conclude the trial.

Hence, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within its stipulated period of time as per its report. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Manishkumar/- U T