Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50650 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-649 Year-2022 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Rahul Kumar son of Upendra Rai @ Upenard Rai R/o- Village- Rustampur, Ward No.- 11, P.S.- Raghopur, Rustampur O.P, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, 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 Araria (Bairgachhi) P.S. Case No. 649 of 2022, instituted for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)/c/25/29 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 08.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19284 of 2025 taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner being a party to the criminal conspiracy and recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.01.2024

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50650 of 2026(2) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 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 13.05.2025, 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. 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.

8. The District Magistrate, Araria and the Superintendent of Police, Araria are also directed to take necessary steps to produce the witnesses on the date fixed in the Trial Court so that the trial could be concluded within the stipulated period.

9. Let this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Araria and the Superintendent of Police, Araria. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T