Raju Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15415 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -548 Year- 2014 Thana -TURKAULIYA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Raju Sahni, S/o Late Yadolal Sahni .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-05-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, who is languishing in custody since 11.08.2014 has renewed his prayer for bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the NDPS Act, in connection with Turkaulia P.S. Case No.548/2014, pending before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari.

Prosecution case is that on information that the petitioner used to deal with narcotics substance, the police raided the house of the petitioner and during search five packets of charas weighing to 3 Kg. 250 gm. was recovered. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15415 of 2016 (4) dt.04-05-2016 2/2 that the recovery has been made from the joint family house of the petitioner and statement has been made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The report of the learned trial Court dated 16th April, 2016 reflects that only informant has been examined. Considering the fact that the recovery is of commercial quantity contraband, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Accordingly, the application for bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. It is expected form the trial Court to expedite the trial. However, if the trial will not be concluded within a period of nine months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T