Bharat Mali Vs the Union of India through Zonal Director, Narcotiv Control Bureau, Bihar

Case No. 30 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 8C, 20(b) (ii) (c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’).

¶19

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in

¶20

custody since 04.12.2021.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is to have in

¶22

possession of 375 kilograms of contraband i.e., ganja, where

¶23

petitioner is the driver of the truck from the cabin of which,

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16841 of 2025(8) dt.08-09-2025 2/4

¶25

alleged contraband was found and seized.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that despite of long custody period as petitioner remains in custody since 04.12.2021 i.e., more than three and half years, only five prosecution witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court, where still two witnesses are left to be examined. It is submitted that speedy trial is the fundamental right of the petitioner and in want of trial petitioner cannot be kept behind bar for indefinite period of time. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available

¶27

through Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, [1980 (1) SCC 98] . It is also submitted that though rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is available against petitioner in view of recovered quantity, which is more than commercial quantity of contraband, but same cannot override the fundamental right as available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua speedy trial. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that petitioner found involved in one more criminal case, where he is on bail.

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16841 of 2025(8) dt.08-09-2025 3/4

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCB, while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that out of 7 prosecution witnesses, 5 witnesses have already been examined, but could not dispute the custody period as submitted aforesaid. It is fairly conceded that matter is pending for examination of prosecution witnesses and these five witnesses were examined in last three and half years.

¶30

In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of custody period, as petitioner remains in custody since 04.12.2021 i.e., more three and half years, where matter is still pending for examination of prosecution witnesses and, as such, trial of this case is not likely to conclude in the near future, accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with NCB P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, (NDPS)-cum-1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, Bihar/concerned court, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16841 of 2025(8) dt.08-09-2025 4/4

¶32

Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) and with further conditions:-

¶33

(i) That accused/petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be physically present on each and every date before the Trial Court till conclusion of the trial and exemption from physical appearance be allowed by the Trial Court, only on medical ground of the petitioner duly supported by the documents.

¶34

(ii) That if petitioner made any deliberate attempt to delay trial, State/informant shall be at liberty to press petition before the learned Trial Court for cancellation of bail bold of petitioner by learned Trial Court, itself, which shall be decided by learned Trial Court, in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.

¶35

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶36

Sanjeet/-

¶37

U T

Bharat Mali v. the Union of India through Zonal Director, Narcotiv Control Bureau, Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Mali v. the Union of India through Zonal Director, Narcotiv Control Bureau, Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Hakim Vs The State of Bihar

Rajan Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Abhirendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Anmol Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Badhan Yadav @ Bihari Yadav Vs The State of Bihar