Kewal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30419 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2024 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Kewal Yadav S/O Late Puhup Lal Yadav R/O Vill.- Bela, Ward no. 8, basmatiya, P.S.- Narpatganj, Dist.- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Manoj Kumar, 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 Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 151 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 21(c), 22 & 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, 2016.

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 22.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26583 of 2025, taking into account recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30419 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026 2/3 Act.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 01.05.2026, a report dated 08.05.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that one (1) out of five (5) charge sheet witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further reported that trial is likely to be concluded within a period of six months. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.02.2025 without any rhymes or reason, having seven (7) criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

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 expeditiously preferably within a period of four (4) months from today. If the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30419 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026 3/3 trial is not concluded within the period of four (4) months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T