Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3768/2026dismissed

Ram Lal Yadav @ Lungi Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-12Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3768 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2024 Thana- JOGBANI District- Araria ====================================================== Ram Lal Yadav @ Lungi Yadav S/o- Late Nageshwar Yadav R/v- Indira Nagar, Tikuliya Basti W.No-3, Ps- Jogbani Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madan Mohan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Jogbani P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 21 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28664 of 2024 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner, who is in custody since 24.10.2024, seeks regular bail in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 21/22 of the NDPS Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 4488 capsules of narcotic drugs have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3768 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2

4. The petitioner is accused in seven more similar and serious case under the Excise Act, Drugs & Cosmetics Act and under NDPS Act.

5. Considering the huge recovery of narcotic drugs from the petitioner as well as the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

7. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is delayed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has seven criminal antecedents and he is custody since 24.10.2024.

4. Considering the huge recovery, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again with direction to the concerned court below to expedite the trial and frame the charges at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T