Nand Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police, Economic Offence, Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16978 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 2016 Thana -ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Nand Kishore Singh Son of Late Ramprit Singh Resident of Village Pakari, P.S. - Bihian, District - Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Superintendent of Police, Economic offence, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. V. N. P. Sinha(Eou)Unit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 27-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The Petitioner seeks bail in Economic Offence Case No. 13 of 2016, pending in the Court of Economic Offence Case No. 13 of 2016, instituted for the offence under Section(s) 8/20(b)(ii)(c) 25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotrohic Substances Act.

It is alleged that total 587.70 Kg of Ganja were recovered from a special chamber constructed behind the cabin of a truck kept in sealed 26 gunny bags. The petitioner was also sitting in the truck and as per written report, he could not give any valid explanation for recovery of huge quantity of ganja from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16978 of 2017 (2) dt.27-04-2017 2/2 truck.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has taken lift and he was travelling as a passenger in the truck.

It has been submitted on behalf of counsel for Economic Offence that as per written report the truck was commercial vehicle and it is mentioned in the written report itself that petitioner disclosed that he is the second driver. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. The petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if no substantive progress is made by the Trial Court.

(Sanjay Priya, J) Shageer/- U T