Vijay Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79584 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2022 Thana- RATANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Vijay Mukhiya Son of Late Ramchandra Mukhiya, R/o Village- Piprahi, Ward No. 03, P.S.- Ratanpura, Dist.- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2025 Heard Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 03.07.2022, in connection with N.D.P.S. (Spl.) No. 18 of 2022, arising out of Ratanpura P.S. Case No. 34 of 2022, FIR dated 04.07.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(c), 22(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3.

Earlier the petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1058 of 2023, which was rejected vide order dated 07.08.2023.

4.

According to the prosecution case, after receiving confidential information, the informant along with the raiding team conducted raid and apprehended the petitioner along with 195 kg of ganja.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79584 of 2024(4) dt.28-01-2025 2/3 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegation in the FIR, 195 kg of ganja has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that there is non-compliance of Sections 50 and 58 of the NDPS Act. Apart from that, petitioner is in custody since 03.07.2022 and trial has not been concluded as yet.

6.

Vide order dated 13.12.2024, a report was called for with regard to the stage of the trial and report dated 07.01.2025 of the learned trial Court reveals that out of nine chargesheeted witnesses, eight witnesses have already been examined and case is pending for the examination of one witness, i.e., the investigating officer of the present case. 7.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

8.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the nature of allegation levelled in the FIR and the report of the learned trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with N.D.P.S. (Spl.) No. 18 of 2022, arising out of Ratanpura P.S. Case No. 34 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul. 9.

Prayer is refused.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79584 of 2024(4) dt.28-01-2025 3/3 10.

However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T