Khursid Khan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44262 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2019 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== KHURSID KHAN SON OF JUBBAIR KHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - RAUZA MOHALLA WARD NO. 28 PS- TOWN, DIST- BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
THE DIRECTOR NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 03-11-2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail in connection with NDPS Case no.2 of 2019 (arising out of Barachatti P.S. Case no.11 of 2019) registered under sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, 57.5 kgs of ganja was recovered concealed in a specially made chamber inside the vehicle being driven by this petitioner
4. The earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide orders dated 8.6.2020 and 10.12.2021 as contained in Annexure-1 series.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the petitioner having remained in custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44262 of 2023(8) dt.03-11-2023 2/2 9.1.2019, the trial has still not concluded.
6. On perusal of the report received from the learned trial Court as contained in letter dated 19.7.2023, read with the show cause filed on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, it transpires that all the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution have been examined.
7. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation together with the progress in trial in the learned trial Court wherein all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T