Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Ram v. The Union Of India Through The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna Zonal Unit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47107 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== DINESH KUMAR YADAV @ DINESH RAM Son of Ram Narayan Rai Resident of Village Athamalgola Ganj Par, P.S. Athmalgola, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, PATNA ZONAL UNIT Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. R.K. Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Special Case No. 31 of 2019 arising out of F. No. NCB/PZU/V/07/2019 registered under Sections 8/20/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-XX-cum-Special Judge, Patna.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 82441 of 2019 on 05.03.2020. Petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2019.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that earlier

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47107 of 2021(3) dt.29-09-2021 2/2 prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected by this Court on merit, as contained in Annexure-1 to the bail application. There is no fresh ground in the present case. On perusal of report, as called for from the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-XVIII, Patna, it appears that charge has already been framed and the case is at the stage of evidence. Summons have already been issued to the witnesses.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case as also the report of the learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is again rejected. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.

shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T