Naveen Kumar @ Navin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11098 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-267 Year-2025 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Naveen Kumar @ Navin Kumar Son of Baiju Mahto @ Vaidya Nath Mahto R/o Village- Patpara PS -Bibhutipur District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bijay Bhushan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Madhuri Lata ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 267 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 8, 20(B)(ii)B of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the recovery is of 5.500 kg of Ganja.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 4.7.2025 and one co-accused namely Pankaj Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68075 of 2025.
5. Considering the period of custody of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11098 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026 2/2 petitioner and the fact that recovery of ganja is of intermediate quantity, this application is allowed.
6. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned concerned Court below in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 267 of 2025.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U