Amresh Kumar @ Amresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26392 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2025 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Amresh Kumar @ Amresh Singh S/o Akshywat Singh Resident of VillageNayagaon, Ward No. 02, P.S.- Nayagaon, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 07 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c) 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 16.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43320 of 2025 taking into consideration the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 01.05.2026, a report dated 11.05.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26392 of 2026(3) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 13.04.2026 and out of six 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 twelve months.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.01.2025 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

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 and is at an advance stage. 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.

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