Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54110/2017rejected

Santosh Kumar Mahto @ Bali Mahto v. The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police, Economic Offence Unit, Patna, Bihar

2018-01-11Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54110 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2016 Thana -ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Mahto @ Bali Mahto S/o Sipahi Mahto, R/o VillageKuiyan, P.S.- Barahra, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through The Superintendent of Police, Economic offence Unit, Patna, Bihar, .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.

For the E.O.U.

: Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh -5, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-01-2018 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate for the E.O.U. and advocate for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Spl. Case No. 20 of 2016, arising out of Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 04 of 2016 dated 15.05.2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 8, 20(b), (ii), (c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The petitioner was found to be occupying a truck from which 425 kilograms of Ganja was recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he did not know about the presence of Ganja in the truck and he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54110 of 2017 (4) dt.11-01-2018 was only the Cleaner (Khalasi) of the aforesaid truck. However, considering the quantity of the narcotics recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has intimated to this Court that the petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2016 and after framing of the charges not a single witness has been examined so far.

The trial court is, therefore, directed to expedite the trial and take all possible steps to ensure the presence of the witnesses.

With the aforesaid observation, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) KKSINHA/- U T