Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37151/2026dismissed

Arun Kumar Yadav @ Arun v. The State Of Bihar

2026-06-30Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37151 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2024 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Arun Kumar Yadav @ Arun S/o Sitaram Yadav Resident of Village - Koshigaon Palika, P.S.- Bhantabari, District - Sunsari (Nepal) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 345 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 22(C), 21(b), 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 15.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 35754 of 2025, which reads as follows:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 345 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 22(C), 21(b), 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, there is recovery of Nitrazepam Tablests IP 10mg-300 Nos., Tramadol Hychloride Capsules IP-400 Nos, Codine

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37151 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026 2/2 Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup (Eskuf)- 40 Nos from the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and huge quantity of recovery, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has not started and the trial is being delayed.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul is directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial.

7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Supaul through FAX or e-mail for immediate compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T