Tunna Pandey @ Yogendra Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17789 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -222 Year- 2017 Thana -DINARA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Tunna Pandey @ Yogendra Pandey Son of Ram Prasad Pandey Resident of Village- Tora , Post- Akorha, P.S. Dinara, District-Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Pronati Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No.222 of 2017, a case under Section 20/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

From the house of this petitioner more than 23 Kgs of Ganja was recovered, hidden in two bags beneath the husk. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR or seizure list does not disclose that the recovery was from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Further the house is occupied by several members of the family of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2017. The petitioner has disclosed his criminal antecedent in his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17789 of 2018 (5) dt.18-06-2018 P2/ supplementary affidavit which shows that single case under the Arms Act is there against the petitioner.

The report of the learned trail Judge would reveal that the prosecution evidence is going on.

Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer, if the trial is not concluded within six months. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months without allowing any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. Let the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram be also directed to ensure production of the witnesses within the aforesaid period on the date fixed by the learned trial Judge. (Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./TKRU T