Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60815/2025dismissed

Abdullah v. The State Of Bihar

2025-10-09Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60815 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2024 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan ====================================================== Abdullah S/o- Mohammed Idris R/o Village- Deviapur P.S.- Mankapur Gonda, U.P.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY CAV ORDER 09-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC and under Sections 20 & 22 of the NDPS Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that altogether 400 kg of ganja was recovered from a truck having Registration No. AS01LC-1035.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the driver and that he is having no knowledge regarding the recovered substance. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2024. Earlier his prayer for bail was rejected on 16.01.2025 by this Court with an observation that "the trial court is hereby directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months."

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60815 of 2025(5) dt.09-10-2025 2/2

5. The status report from the trial court has been called for. From perusal of the said report it is clear that in this case, the charges were framed on 20.08.2025 and till the date of the report, no prosecution witnesses were examined. Admittedly, the commercial quantity of ganja has been recovered from the vehicle which was being driven by this petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail to the petitioner.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months.

9. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Durgesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 19.09.2025 Uploading Date 09.10.2025 Transmission Date 09.10.2025