Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46226/2014rejected

Jageshwar Jaiswal @ Langer v. The State Of Bihar

2015-01-28Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46226 of 2014 (3) dt.28-01-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46226 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2013 Thana -CHAND District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== JAGESHWAR JAISWAL @ LANGER, SON OF LATE KATWARU JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIURI, P.S. CHAND, DISTRICTKAIMUR (BHABUA). .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr.Ranjit Ranjan(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Chand P.S. Case No. 25 of 2013, G.R. No. 907 of 2013, Tr. No. 3 of 2014 registered under Sections 20(B), 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 154 dated 20.12.2014, from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Kaimur at Bhabua, which shows that out of eight witnesses, seven witnesses have already been examined and only one witness remained to be examined and also expected period for conclusion of trial within one to one and half months.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46226 of 2014 (3) dt.28-01-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 11.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33818 of 2013 by this Court. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 21.05.2013 for about 28 months. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of Ganja is about 8.4 K.G.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T