IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37845 of 2010 Md.Mahtab, S/o Md. Abdul Hameed, R/o Village- Machli Market Saharsa, P.S. + District-Saharsa. …….. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party with Cr.Misc. No.40615 of 2010 Ganesh Yadav, S/o Late Baleuji Yadav, R/o Village-Mathia, P.S.- Madhepura, District-Madhepura. …….. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party with Cr.Misc. No.42177 of 2010 Md.Ishaque @ Md.Ishakh, S/o Md. Shamshad, R/o Village- Nirmalli Chowk, P.S.-Pipra and District- Supaul. …….. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party ----------- 3. 16.12.2010 All the above mentioned petitions have arisen out of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 250 of 2010 (Spl. Case No. 2 of 2010) registered under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and accordingly, they are being disposed of by this common order. All the above stated petitioners along with some others were caught in a vehicle and 117 K.G. Ganja was recovered from the aforesaid vehicle. Learned counsel appearing in Cr. Misc. Case No. 37845/ 2010 submits that petitioner was passenger and boarded in the said vehicle for going Saharsa but he was not aware about the fact that any contravened item had been kept in the aforesaid vehicle. Similar submission is advanced on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. Case No. 40615/2010 and furthermore it is submitted that witnesses have supported the aforesaid fact which is evident from perusal of para 59 2 of the case diary. Learned counsel appearing in Cr.Misc. Case No. 42177/ 2010 submits that admittedly petitioner was driver of the aforesaid vehicle and the alleged recovery was made between the middle and the rear seat of the aforesaid vehicle, so the petitioner was not aware about the aforesaid contravened item. Although learned counsels tried to convince me about the innocence of the above stated petitioners, but I am not satisfied at all with the aforesaid submissions. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above stated petitioners stands rejected. However, learned Spl.Judge, Madhepura is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioners and if the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail. Sujit (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)