Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15129/2026bail rejected

Gurpreet Singh v. The Union Of India Through Director Narcotics Control Bureau Patna.

2026-07-14Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15129 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2022 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Gaya ====================================================== Gurpreet Singh Son of Jagir Singh Resident of Village- Daddian, Ludhar, Kathunangal, Police Station- Majitha, District- Amritsar, State Punjab. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India through Director Narcotics Control Bureau Patna. Patna 2.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Syed Asgher Najmi, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the UoI :

Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG Mr. Radhika Kumar Singh, Sr. CGC Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Anand Kumar Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the NCB and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 21 of 2022, NCB Case No. 1 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29, 35 of the NDPS Act.

3. Earlier, vide order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19722 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence.

4. In compliance of the order dated 10.03.2026 a report

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15129 of 2026(6) dt.14-07-2026 2/2 dated 13.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that there are five prosecution witnesses and out of which, three witnesses have been examined. It is further reported that trial is likely to be concluded in six months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 29.06.2022 without any rhymes or reason and has one criminal antecedent.

6. Learned counsel for the NCB and learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.

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 preferably within a period of three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T