Manjar Ahmad @ Manjar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22129 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2025 Thana- Bathnaha District- Araria ====================================================== Manjar Ahmad @ Manjar Son of Late Mumtaz Ahmad @ Mohammad Mumtaz R/o Village - Amouna, Ward no. 22, P.S. - Jogbani, Dist. - Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 38 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 21(c), 22 and 23 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 by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40760 of 2025 taking into consideration the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22129 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 14.05.2025 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that charge has already been framed against the petitioner but the trial has not concluded.

5.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.

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.

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