Ramesh singh Vs The State of Bihar

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 97 of 2022 for the offence punishable under sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act lodged on 19.03.2022 by the informant, Arun Kumar Singh.

¶18

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that during vehicle checking, a Maruti car was intercepted, the driver tried to speed up but was apprehended. Upon search, 136.3 kg ‘ganja’ was recovered/seized and those present in it (Bablu Bhagat and this petitioner) were arrested. This led to the FIR.

¶19

The investigation took place, cognizance taken and

¶20

the trial commenced.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66034 of 2024(3) dt.23-01-2025 2/6

¶22

As stated above, while rejecting the prayer for bail, the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months as the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2022.

¶23

Additionally, the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra was also directed to ensure that the rest of the witnesses including the I.O. present themselves before the Trial Court.

¶24

Now, in the present case, a report was called for

¶25

which has since received and read as follows:

¶26

“ i=kad&439@ fnukad&12-11-2024

¶27

izs’kd] izFke vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k] lkj.k] NijkA

¶28

lsok esa]

¶29

lgk;d fuca/kd] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVukA

¶30

Nijk] fnukad&12 uoEcj] 2024 fo’k;%& ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk }kjk Cr.Misc.No. 66034 of 2024 esa ikfjr vkns”k fnukad&27-09-2024 ds vkyksd esa HksYnh Fkkuk dk.M la0&97@2022 ls mRiUu N.D.P.S. okn la0&12@2022 esa dk.M nSfudh dh Nk;kizfr Hkstus ,oa okn fopkj.k dh orZeku fLFkfr ds laca/k esa izfrosnuA

¶31

egk”k;]

¶32

mijksDr fo’k; ds vkyksd esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk }kjk Cr.Misc.No. 66034 of 2024 esa ikfjr vkns”k fnukad&27-09-2024 ds vuqikyu esa HksYnh Fkkuk dk.M la0&97@2022 ls mRiUu N.D.P.S. okn la0&12@2022 ds dk.M nSfudh dh Nk;kizfr i= ds lkFk layXu dj Hksth tk jgh gSA okn fopkj.k dh orZeku fLFkfr ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li’V gksrk gS fd orZeku esa ;g okn lk{; gsrq yafcr gSA vkjksi i= esa ukfer dqy ukS lkf{k;ksa esa ls vkB lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; gks pqdk gS dsoy vuqla/kkudrkZ dk lk{; gksuk ckdh gS

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66034 of 2024(3) dt.23-01-2025 3/6

¶34

ftlds fy;s vuqla/kkudrkZ ds fo:) lEeu fuxZr gSA okn fnukad 16-11-2024 dks vfHk;kstu lk{; gsrq fu;r gSA vr% egk”k; ls fouez vuqjks/k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk Cr.Misc.No. 66034 of 2024 esa ikfjr vkns”k fnukad&27-09-2024 ds vkyksd esa ;g izfrosnu ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djus dh d`ik dh tk;A blds fy, Jheku dk lnk vHkkjh jgwaxkA

¶35

fo”oklHkktu

¶36

g0@& izFke vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k lkj.k] NijkA 12-11-2024 vuqyXud%& HksYnh Fkkuk dk.M la0&97@2022 ls mRiUu N.D.P.S. okn la0&12@2022 ds dk.M nSfudh dh Nk;kizfrA ”

¶37

From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that eight out of nine witnesses have already been examined till the report was submitted on 12.11.2024 and only I.O. is to be examined. Though there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court failed to conclude the trial within the time limit granted by the Court, this Court cannot be oblivious of the ground reality where the Investigating Officer/Medical Officer are the two witnesses who unless repeated summons are sent, fail to present themselves so that the trial is concluded.

¶38

The Trial Court is empowered to issue summon/bailable warrant/non-bailable warrant against all witnesses including the Investigating Officer/Medical Officer

¶39

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66034 of 2024(3) dt.23-01-2025 4/6

¶40

and from the report, it is not clear whether the Trial Court took such step or not.

¶41

The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra who was requested on 24.11.2023 itself to see to it that the Investigating Officer present themselves, probably chose to look the other way which has resulted into delay in the conclusion of the trial.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case, he deserves bail as has been observed by the learned Apex Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLA) (Cr. No. 4648 of 2024) where it has been held that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting into prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1) (b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

¶43

In that background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has remained in custody for more than two and half years and as such, deserves bail .

¶44

Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh on the other hand submits that the trial is at the fag end, eight out of

¶45

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66034 of 2024(3) dt.23-01-2025 5/6

¶46

nine witnesses have been examined, in that background and considering the huge quantity that has been recovered/seized, he does not deserve bail.

¶47

Having gone through the facts of the case and the submission of the parties as also perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds force in the submission of learned APP. The facts of each and every case varies. In the present case, not only there is huge recovery of 136.3 kg ganja from the car in which the petitioner was traveling, the fact remains that the Trial Court has taken all the steps to conclude the trial but only due to the indifferent attitude of the Investigating Officer, the trial could not be concluded. Eight out of nine witnesses have been examined and the trial is at the fag end.

¶48

In that background, this Court opines that the order of Ankur Chaudhary (supra) does not apply in the case of the petitioner.

¶49

The bail petition stands rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and if the Investigating Officer has still not come, to take all the appropriate steps including the issuance of non-bailable warrant to ensure his presence before the Court. This Court is of the firm belief that the Trial Court is

¶50

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66034 of 2024(3) dt.23-01-2025 6/6

¶51

required to conclude the trial in three months if it still not has been concluded.

¶52