Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39978/2017dismissed

Ran Vijay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-22Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39978 of 2017 (2) dt.22-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39978 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 2017 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Ran Vijay Singh S/o- Baijnath Singh, resident of Village- Ramandihara, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 07 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of 7.332 kg of ganja.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and the seizure list was not prepared as per the mandatory provisions. It has also been submitted that vehicle from alleged recovery was made was hired by other co-accused of this case and only petitioner has been made main accused showing recovery from him. Further he has been in judicial custody since 07.04.2017 and has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39978 of 2017 (2) dt.22-08-2017 and submitted that in this case there is recovery of Ganja, which is more than the small quantity.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances and quantity of ganja recovered in this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is accordingly rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T