Ranjeet Kumar Mandal @ Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17126 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-983 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Mandal @ Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Mandal Son of Late Nityanand Mandal Resident of Mohalla- Radha Rani Sinha Road, Adampur Ward No.23, PS-Jogsar(Kotwali), Distt.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with N.D.P.S Case No.126 of 2023 arising out of Kotwali (Jogsar) P.S. Case No. 983 of 2023 lodged on 17.10.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 20 & 22 of the N.D.P.S Act read with sections 18(A), 18(B), 18(C), 27(b)II, 28 & 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, pending in the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2898 of 2024, regular bail has been granted to the petitioner with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17126 of 2025(4) dt.01-08-2025 2/3 condition that the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds by the trial court itself. Counsel submits that the bail bonds of the petitioner has been cancelled only due to the reason of non-appearance on two dates only. He submits that as per his knowledge, charge has been framed in this case. Counsel also submits that he shall not misuse the privilege of bail in future.
4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from the report, it transpires that the case was fixed for framing of charge and thereafter, petitioner started evading his appearance so that charge could not be framed and then only the trial court has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner. Counsel submits that from the report, it also transpires that charge has been framed on 04.02.2025 when petitioner was arrested after cancellation of his bail bond. Case is pending at the stage of evidence. Trial court has also indicated in the report that the trial is likely to be concluded within four months.
5. It transpires to this Court that if, petitioner again evade his appearance during adducing evidence, then the progress of trial shall not proceed and there shall be hurdle.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17126 of 2025(4) dt.01-08-2025 3/3
6. As such, in this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected with liberty to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after five months from today.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T