Patna High CourtCR. MISC./79460/2025bail rejected

Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79460 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-940 Year-2024 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ====================================================== Rahul Kumar S/O Lal Bahahdur Ray R/O Vill.- Rajiv Nagar Road no. 23, P.S. and P.O.- Rajiv Nagar, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in 940 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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 30.04.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11839 of 2025, taking into account the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

4. In compliance of the order dated 21.11.2025, a report dated 06.01.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79460 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that out of five witnesses, one witness has been examined and summons have been issued against the remaining witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.10.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no new ground to reconsider the bail petition of the petitioner.

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 six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the learned Court below.

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