← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9853/2026bail rejected

Hemjaj Kumar @ Hemraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-13Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9853 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2024 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Hemjaj Kumar @ Hemraj Kumar Son of Daso Singh @ Dasho Singh Resident of Village - Sonkhba, P.S.- Barrachati, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 251 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 18, 20 & 22 of the NDPS Act.

3.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 27.06.202, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72962 of 2024, taking into account the fact that recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9853 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026 2/2 petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.05.2024 without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner, which is already decided by this Court on merit.

8.

In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T