Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16046/2017rejected

Vijay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-17Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16046 of 2017 (3) dt.17-05-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16046 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2012 Thana -MINAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Vijay Kumar Singh Son of late Ram Sagar Singh Resident of VillageMaheshwara, P.S. Nawkothi, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Reena Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 01.04.2012 in connection with Trial No. 04 of 2016 arising out of Minapur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2012 registered under Sections 20 and 22 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner happens to be the driver of the alleged vehicle has no knowledge about the said articles, which were alleged to have been kept on the vehicle. Charge sheet has been filed in this case and till date trial has not been completed. Since the case is of the year 2012 and the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last four and half years, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16046 of 2017 (3) dt.17-05-2017 Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that 308 Kgs. Gania was recovered from the TATA 407-BR9D-9394 and this petitioner is the driver of the alleged vehicle. Moreover prosecution version have been supported by the witnesses which is evident from the paragraph nos. 12, 18, 22, 34, 35,3b, 37, 38, 42, 69 and 75 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is, hereby, rejected. It is made clear that the learned trial court shall expedite the trial and try to conclude the same preferably within a period of three months.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T