IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33530 of 2009 Bipin Kumar Gupta, Son of Luxmi Narayan Sah, Resident of Village Maisore Nagar, P.S. Soh Sarai, District Nalanda. ------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party ----------- 2 7.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The involvement of the petitioner in this case comes out on recovery of more than 600 liters spirit from a driver and a khalasi of a vehicle (Bolero) allegedly owned by Mohan Yadav and Pappu Yadav. The petitioner has however been named to be one of the consignees by the driver and the khalasi of the vehicle from which huge amount of spirit was seized. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that since there is no recovery from the personal conscious possession of the petitioner and that he has remained in jail from 3rd July, 2009, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering that the offence is under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act having maximum punishment of three years. Submission to the aforementioned extent in fact appear to be quite convincing but then this Court would find that there are five 2 similar cases against him for the same offence under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act, one of the year 2006, one of the year 2007, two of the year 2008 and one of the year 2009.That by itself would mean that the petitioner now has become habitual offender on account of his becoming involved or indulged in offence under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. It is thus this aspect of the matter which would disentitle the petitioner for being released on bail for the present. It has to be also kept in mind that the evidence in such cases in course of trial arising out of an offence under the Excise Act is normally of the official witnesses and therefore, this Court would direct the concerned trial court to take up the trial of this case of the petitioner on an expeditious basis and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial of the petitioner in the present case will not be concluded in the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner will have the liberty to move initially the trial court for grant of 3 bail and the trial court will be under obligation to record reasons for not concluding the trial. The trial court, in fact, may release the petitioner on bail if it finds that delay in concluding the trial is totally attributable to the prosecution. If the prayer of bail of the petitioner, however, is rejected by the trial court, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this court. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)