Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78556/2025dismissed

Neetish Kumar Singh @ Neetish Kumar v. The Union Of India

2026-05-14Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78556 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2024 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna ====================================================== Neetish Kumar Singh @ Neetish Kumar S/O Ramprawesh Singh R/O Village- Purushottampur, P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran Chhapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nawaz Shareef, Advocate For the State :

Mr.K.N.Singh(A.S.G.) For the UOI :

Mr. Sanchak Srivastava, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Sushant Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Ashish Kumar Palit, Advocate Ms. Sonali Priya, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with F. No. DRI/LZU/PRU/718 ENQ/14/2024 appertaining to DRI Patna Unit Case No. 02 of 2024-2025 registered for the offence/s punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) (c), 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71778 of 2024.

4. As per the prosecution case, 65.600 kg. Ganja was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78556 of 2025(9) dt.14-05-2026 2/2 recovered from the Hyundai Santro car and the petitioner and the co-accused person were found sitting inside the car.

5. In the trial, witnesses are being examined and P.W.- 3 has recently been examined.

6. Considering the fact that huge amount of ganja has been recovered from the petitioner and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. The prosecution is directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses on the dates fixed in the trial.

9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T