The Court does not find any mitigating circumstances to consider the prayer for bail to the petitioner however the trial must be concluded as per the time frame indicated in the report: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 288321 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 13 Year 2019 Thana GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP District West Champaran Sharma Yadav aged about 32 Years Male Son of Sri Chandrika Yadav Resident of Village Daleya PS Kuchai Kote District Gopalganj Union of India through Intelligence Officer Patna Zonal Unit Narcotics Control Bureau 67 Kautilya Nagar PO BV College Patna ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the UOI Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma Advocate Mr. Radhika Raman APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Radhika Raman learned counsel for the Union of India 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with NDPS Case No. 119 arising out of CIS No. 419 appertaining to NCB Case F No. NCB PZU V 119 dated 25.05.2019 instituted under Sections 8 2 20 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by judgment and order dated 08.06.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 142720 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.288321 dt.15 09 2021 5. The allegation against the petitioner and 12 others is that from the two vehicles on which they were travelling and were seized by the authorities a total of 240 kgs. ganja in 45 packets was recovered 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been considered on merits earlier. However it was submitted that the Court had taken note of the stand of learned counsel for the Union of India that if the petitioner was released it may hamper the trial as persons after getting bail do not cooperate in the trial which keeps lingering and in the meantime the accused keep indulging in such activity. It was submitted that despite such stand and the prayer for bail having been rejected the trial has neither been concluded nor there is any substantive progress 7. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that out of five prosecution witnesses three have already been examined. Further he assured that the remaining two witnesses would also depose in this case as and when the Court fixes the date for the same 8. In view of the aforesaid stand of learned counsel for the parties on 18.08.2021 the Court had called for a report from Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.288321 dt.15 09 2021 the Court below with regard to the status of the case and the likely time by which trial could be concluded 9. Pursuant thereto the learned District and Sessions Judge West Champaran Bettiah has submitted a report dated 23.08.2021 in which it has been stated that the Court would try its best to conclude the trial within six months as the Court has started functioning on hybrid mode on experimental basis 10. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that all prosecution witnesses have been examined and today the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is also scheduled to be recorded 11. Having regard to the fact that all the witnesses from the prosecution side have been examined the Court does not find any mitigating circumstances to consider the prayer for bail to the 12. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed. 13. However in view of the stage of the trial as noted above the Court below is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously subject to co operation by the petitioner. The Court would only observe that in view of the report of the Court below the trial must be concluded as per the time frame indicated in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.288321 dt.15 09 2021 report of the learned District and Sessions Judge West Champaran Bettiah dated 23.08.2021 (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Section 8 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, “Prohibition of certain operations relating to narcotic drug or psychotropic substance”, Section 2, “definitions elaborated under IPC”, Section 20, “Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis”, Section 25, “Punishment for allowing premises, etc to be used for commission of an offence”, and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, “Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.” The petition is in connection with NDPS Case [No. 18 of 2019] arising out of CIS [No. 47 of 2019] appertaining to NCB Case F No. [NCB/PZU/V/13] of 2019 dated 25.05.2019. This is a second attempt for bail which was earlier rejected by judgment and order dated 08.06.2020 passed in [Cr. Misc. No. 14276 of 2020]. In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 15th of September  2021 in the case of Sharma Yadav Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Patna Zonal Unit, Narcotics Control Bureau, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28836 of 2021] Mr Umesh Chandra Verma represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Radhika Raman, represented the union of India as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The case arises from the fact wherein, the petitioner along with 12 others was accused of possessing a total of 240 kgs. ganja in 45 packets they were recovered from two vehicles in which the petitioners were travelling it was recovered and seized by the authorities. The counsel representing the petitioner held that earlier bail was rejected because the Union of India held that If the petitioner was released that may hamper the trial process after many accused gets bailed where they tend to not corporate in the trial and he might keep lingering and because of the this the accused was held in custody for a long period of time. The counsel submitted that despite this being the reason for the rejection of bail, the same trial had neither been concluded nor there was substantive progress. Therefore, it would not be acceptable to hold the petitioner under custody when the trial process is currently stagnant. The counsel representing the Union of India held that the trial process is ongoing and out of the five prosecution witnesses, three had already been examined. Furthermore, the counsel assured the court that the remaining two witnesses would also depose in such a case as and when the Court would fix the date for the same. The Court ordered a report with regard to the status of the case and enquired about the time period by which the trial could be concluded. The learned District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah submitted a report dated 23.08.2021. The report stated that the Court would focus on concluding the trial within six months as the court had started the function from the lockdown period due to covid-19. The process will not take too long. The counsel for the Union of India held that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and there would be a recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Honourable Court concluded that “The fact that all the witnesses from the prosecution side have been examined, the Court does not find any mitigating circumstances to consider the prayer for bail to the petitioner.  Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, in view of the stage of the trial, as noted above, the Court below is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, subject to co-operation by the petitioner. The Court would only observe that in view of the report of the Court below, the trial must be concluded as per the time frame indicated in the report of the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah dated 23.08.2021.” Click here to read the Judgment  Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham