Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52354 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2020 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada ====================================================== SANJAY PRASAD @ SANJAY SINGH Son of Lakhan Singh @ Lakhan Mahto R/V- Gowasha, P.S- narhat, Dist- nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 8(b)(v) and 20(a)(b)of the NDPS Act. Earlier considering the quantum of recovery of Ganja, prayer for bail of this petitioner had been rejected vide order dated 09.02.2022 by this Court with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the trial of the petitioner. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail and while entertaining this application, a report with regard to present stage of the trial has been called for by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2022 which has been received and forms part of this application at Flag-P. On perusal thereof, it would reveal that charge has been framed in this case on 27.08.2021 and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52354 of 2022(3) dt.16-11-2022 2/2 summons have been issued for examination of witnesses 20.10.2022 and the case is fixed for evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the aforesaid report submits that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail as he has been languishing in judicial custody since 30.11.2020 i.e. almost two years.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has, vehemently, opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that a direction may be issued to the learned trial court to expedite the trial and try to conclude it soon.

Considering the substantial progress in the trial as mentioned in the report received from the trial court, this Court is not inclined to differ with its earlier view to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T