Shiv Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51841 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2022 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Shiv Kumar S/o Yogendra R/o- Vid Farma, P.S.- Sadar Hasi, Distt- Hisar, State- Haryana ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Priya Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 249 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 20(b)(II)(c), 23, 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 14-11-2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61474 of 2024. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 25-07-2025, a report dated 01-08-2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that five out of six witnesses have been examined.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51841 of 2025(3) dt.12-09-2025 2/2 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07-06-2022 without any rhymes or reason, having no antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future and since petitioner has suffered long incarceration, he deserves the privilege of bail. 6.

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

7.

From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is on the verge of its conclusion. 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 two months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of two 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