Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57763/2025dismissed

Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-26Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57763 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2023 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar Son of Laxmi Sah R/o village - Mohini Mandal, P.S.- Suppi, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-09-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No. 283 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 25(1-b)a, 25/35 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 09.08.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 22338 of 2024 which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No. 283 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drug & Psychotropic Substances Act and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. The recovery is of 1.08 kg. of charas which is more than the commercial quantity.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57763 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail since 10.06.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes theprayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the recovery which is more than commercial quantity, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has been framed but no witness has been examined.

5. In view of the aforesaid, no ground for review is made out. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the prosecution delays the trial.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi is directed to ensure the attendance of witnesses in the trial on the dates fixed.

7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi through FAX for its compliance forthwith.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T