Tej Bahadur @ Tejbahadur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15435 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2024 Thana- DURGAWATI District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Tej Bahadur @ Tejbahadur S/o Late Jokhan Ram R/o Village - Sio, P.S - Chaubepur (Chauki Chiraiygao), District - Varanasi, (U.P) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P. N. Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Pushkar Prashant, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 79 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 21(c) and 22(c) of the Indian Penal Code.

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 by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39489 of 2024 taking into consideration the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026, a report dated 18.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15435 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that out of six charge-sheeted witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of three months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.03.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got two criminal antecedents in which he is on bail.

6.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on.

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 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) Rajorshi/- U T