Firoz Yusuf @ Firoz Yusuf Shaikh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30032 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- SARSI District- Purnia ====================================================== Firoz Yusuf @ Firoz Yusuf Shaikh S/o- Late Yusuf Sheikh Resident of H MO 4-31 601, Jai Bajrang Nagar Po- Dhamangaon PS- Philambari Gaokhera DistAurangabad Maharastra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivek Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sarsi P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25 and 29 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 22.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65795 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.30032 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 4.

In compliance of the order dated 15.05.2026, a report dated 29.05.2026 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 07.03.2026. It is further reported that out of six charge-sheeted witnesses, only one witness has been examined in this case. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 28.06.2025 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.

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.

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