Sachin Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80725 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2021 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia ====================================================== Sachin Sahni Son of Dev Lal Sahni Resident of Village - Gurmia, P.S. - Kartaha, Distt.- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-01-2024 The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for regular bail in connection with Special Case No. 68 of 2021 (NDPS Act) arising out of Baisi P.S. Case No. 270 of 2021 corresponding to C.I.S. No. 65 of 2021 dated 15.09.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii) (c) and 25 of the NDPS Act. However, the similar bail petition by way of Cr. Misc. No. 32686 of 2022 was previously moved and the same was dismissed by this Court on merit vide order dated 03.01.2023, in view of alleged recovery of 472.180 kg of Ganja from the truck which the petitioner was driving.

2. Subsequent to that order, the petitioner has moved bail petition before the Court of Ld. 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea. However, the same has been rejected by the order dated 19.08.2023 passed in Special NDPS Case No. 68 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80725 of 2023(3) dt.29-01-2024 2/2 2021 arising out of Baisi P.S. Case No. 270 of 2021.

3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 16.09.2021, i.e. for about two year and four months. He further submits that trial is not concluded as transpires from the bail order dated 19.08.2023 passed by Ld. 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea and only one witness is examined.

4. In view of the nature of allegation, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby rejected.

5. However, Ld. 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year and in case, the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail and the trial Court would be required to explain why the trail could not be concluded within the stipulated time. (Jitendra Kumar, J) Shoaib/ ravishankarU T