Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37218 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Jha S/o Anil Kumar Jha Resident of Village - Bihat Ibrahimpur Tola, P.S. - Barauni F.C.I., Dist. - Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 8 and 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 10.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 74589 of 2025 taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37218 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026 2/2 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 13.07.2025 without any rhymes or reason and has got one criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 07.03.2026 but no any witness has been examined in this case.

5.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the recovered contraband is above commercial quantity. 6.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of 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