Jitendra Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18633 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2024 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Jitendra Manjhi Son of Krishna Manjhi Resident of Village- Piprahi, P.S. Barachatti, District- Gaya, ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 158 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act. 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21590 of 2025 taking into consideration the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18633 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026 2/2 4.

In compliance of the order dated 10.04.2026, a report dated 04.05.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 05.01.2026 and out of five charge-sheeted witnesses, no any witness has been examined in this case. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of nine months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.12.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got three criminal antecedents.

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.

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. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T