Ramanuj Kumar @ Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64849 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- LUTUA District- Gaya ====================================================== Ramanuj Kumar @ Pramod Kumar S/o Ram Dular Sao Resident of VillageLutua, PS-Lutua, District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in Lutua P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 17(c) and 18(c) of the N.D.P.S. 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 26.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43394 of 2024 taking into account the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 4.

In compliance of the order dated 09.09.2025, a report dated 25.09.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64849 of 2025(3) dt.10-10-2025 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that out of four charge-sheeted witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined in this case. It is further reported that bailable warrant has been issued for examination of remaining charge-sheeted witnesses.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.03.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is at an advance stage. 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.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T