Dinesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4988 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2023 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Dinesh Yadav, Son of Bhuneshwar Yadav @ Bhumi Yadav @ Bhubaneshwar Yadav Resident of Village- Khorabatar @ Khoravaratar, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Mahishi, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 08 of 2023 for the offences registered under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

3. This is the second regular bail petition of the petitioner. Earlier his regular bail petition was dismissed on merit by this Court on 08.02.2024.

4. Report regarding present stage of trial of the case has been received from the Trial Court from which it appears that charges have been framed in this case and the case is at the stage of prosecution's evidence. Five prosecution witnesses have already been examined in this case and five witnesses who all are police

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4988 of 2025(3) dt.09-05-2025 2/2 officials including I.O. are yet to be examined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 08.02.2023 facing trial. He further submits that the trial before the learned Court below may complete within a reasonable period of time. Petitioner is single bread earner of his family and due to his incarceration about two years his family came at the verge of starvation. He lastly submits that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the trial. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.

6. Learned APP for the State submits that no fresh ground has been made out by the petitioner for grant of regular bail.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and considering that no fresh ground is made out by the petitioner for consideration of bail, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

8. The Trial Court is expected to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.) rakhi/- U T