Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29522/2017dismissed

Md. Saheb v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-09-11Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29522 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -718 Year- 2016 Thana -BETTIAH CITY DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Md. Saheb, son of Md. Jamalu @ Ahmad Jamaluddin , R/o VillageNaurngbagh Baswariya, P.S.- Bettiah, Town, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Union of India through Director Narcotic Control Bureau, Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar-1 For the Union of India : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Trial No. 17 of 2017, arising out of Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 718 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 23, 25, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of 200 grams of smack from his possession.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is violation of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act and even sample has not been collected by following the prescribed provision under the Act. Further submission is that there is no report of Expert regarding contents of the seized article and he is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29522 of 2017 (4) dt.11-09-2017 2/2 in custody for eight months.

Heard learned APP and learned Central Government Counsel. They have opposed the prayer for bail. Having heard both sides and in view of facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that it is not the proper stage to consider the aforesaid argument, however, in view of recovery of smack, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

However, as the petitioner is in custody for eight months, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U