Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15852/2026bail rejected

Ramchandra Mehta @ Rams v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-24Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15852 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2024 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Ramchandra Mehta @ Rams, S/o Devenarayan Mehta @ Devnarayan Mahto, Resdent of Village- Sripurjabti, Ward no. 4, P.S- Bhantabari, District- Sunsari, Nepal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Lal, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 96 of 2024 arising out of Birpur P.S. Case No.345 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for regular bail. However, it transpires that similar petition of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34721 of 2025 on merit in view of commercial quantity of the recovered contraband. There is no fresh ground except the passage of time.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15852 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.10.2024 i.e. for about one year five months and only one prosecution witness has been examined during trial and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future.

5. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

8. However, the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2024, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within seven months, failing which the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/- U T