Ejajul Shaikh v. Union Of India Through D.R.I., Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38794 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2015 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna ====================================================== EJAJUL SHAIKH ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH D.R.I., PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shail Kumari, C.G.C.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No.22 of 2015 arising out of F. No. DRI/12U/PRU/718(ii)ENQ21/15 for the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that total four prosecution witnesses have been examined and rest of the witnesses are still to be examined, therefore, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near further which is evident from the report received from the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XX, Patna.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38794 of 2019(5) dt.04-09-2019 2/2 The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since11.09.2015. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail. Learned counsel for the Union of India has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the trial is likely to be concluded within six months which is evident from the report at flag-'s'. Therefore the petitioner may not be enlarged on regular bail Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail of this petitioner is rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T