Mukesh Kumar @ Tuntun Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3074 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.
Mukesh Kumar @ Tuntun Sharma son of Late Awdesh Sharma villageParasi P.S- Uphara Dist- Aurangabad P/A- Makhdumpur, Ps- Rafiganj, DistAurangabad 2.
Bittu Kumar sharma son of Late Abhay Sharma village- Parasi P.S- Uphara Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant bail application has been filed in terms of the liberty granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail in the event if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year for no fault of the petitioners by an order dated 03.05.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20888 of 2023. It is next submitted that the trial, till date, has not concluded.
4. The learned APP for the State submits that the case was taken up on 11.04.2025 and a report was called from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3074 of 2025(4) dt.25-04-2025 2/2 learned Trial Court.
5. In view of the order dated 11.04.2025, a report has been sent by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge 1st cum Special Judge, Aurangabad on 02.04.2025 contained in Letter No. 71 of 2025 wherein it has been recorded that altogether seven witnesses have been examined and one witness is still to be examined and the report also records-Time expected to be taken in for conclusion of trial-six months, as the evidence is in full swing, but the aforenoted witness is yet to be examined and thereafter the defence will also be given time to produce the witnesses etc.
6. In view of the report of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge 1st cum Special Judge, Aurangabad dated 02.04.2025, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T