Lorik Yadav v. The Union Of India Through Director General, D.R.I., Muzaffarpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43383 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2015 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Lorik Yadav, Son of Sri Dhrub Yadav, Resident of Village- Basantpur, P.S. Sathi, District- West Champaran (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through Director General, D.R.I., Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-12-2016 Heard Sri Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned Senior Central Government Panel Counsel, assisted by Sri Ravindra Kumar Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel. The sole petitioner, who is in custody since 17.06.2014 in D.R. I. Case No.4 of 2015 , Trial No.22/16 registered for the offence under Section 20(ii)c and 25 of N.D.P.S.Act, has prayed for grant of bail.

It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the complaint filed by the complainant, it is evident that the petitioner had come on being asked by his father, namely, Dhrub Yadav. It is true that in presence of the petitioner and his father, huge quantity of Charas was recovered to the tune of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43383 of 2016 (3) dt.19-12-2016 2/2 38.800 gms, it is a fact fact that the petitioner was not aware regarding concealment of the said article.. On the aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made to extend the privilege of bail. Learned Senior Central Government Panel Counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that it is a case of recovery of huge quantity of Charas and the petitioner along with his father was involved in trafficking of the same. He submits that the petitioner along with his father was arrested and their statement was got recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In view of recovery of huge quantity of Charas, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail. The petition stands dismissed.

However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 2014, while dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to observe that the learned trial court may take appropriate steps, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. At the same time, the prosecution is also directed to render full assistance to the trial court.