IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14107 of 2008 MD.MASTER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner : Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha,Advocate. For Union of India : Mr. Prashant Kashyap (CGC) 6 18.12.2008 Heard. Petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 22,23,24 and 27 of the N.D.P.S.Act. From the records it appears the petitioner initially moved this court for bail which was heard and rejected under order dated 13.11.2003. The petitioner again moved this court for bail which was heard and rejected under order dated 17.07.2006 with certain directions commanding the court below to take up and conclude the trial within specified period. The petitioner has now renewed his prayer for bail on the ground that the trial has not concluded and he has remained in custody for nearly six years by now. On 28.05.2008 the following orders came to be passed. “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is in jail custody for more than five years as under trial prisoner as he was found in possession of 450 grams of brown sugar. Repeated directions have been given to expedite the trial, but till date only official witnesses have been examined and two independent seizure list witnesses are not being 2 examined as they are not responding to the summons issued to them and from the report of the trial court, it appears that the warrant of arrest has been issued for securing their attendance. Trial court is directed to ensure examination of two independent witnesses as early as possible, in any case within three months from today.” Pursuant to the said order a status report has been submitted to this court. From perusal whereof, it appears that two witnesses have already been examined. It further appears that non- bailable warrant of arrest has been issued for securing attendance of some of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that in fact all the official witnesses have been examined in this case and only one of the independent witnesses has been examined. One witness is still left to be examined. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for nearly six years and that in spite of repeated observation made by this court the trial has not yet concluded. This court in the particular facts of the case, while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner observes as under: The trial court shall take all steps to conclude the trial on or before 31st of March 2009, failing which the petitioner, namely, Md. Master, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of 3 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection with Muzaffarpur D.R.I. No. 5/03.In the event the petitioner is granted bail in terms of the order passed by this court the same shall be subject to following conditions: (i) One of the bailors should be the own/close family member of the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner shall appear in the court below in person on each date fixed in the case, in case of default without compelling reason(s) therefor the trial court shall have liberty to cancel the bail bond and secure his arrest in accordance with law. This application stands disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)