Ram Sundra Singh @ Ram Sundar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76447 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2024 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Ram Sundra Singh @ Ram Sundar Singh, S/o Late Ramjit Singh @ Ramji Singh, R/o Village - Bagheji, P.S - Barauli, District - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate.

Ms. Urmila Kumari, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 248 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(B)/ (ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act.

3. The petitioner has moved this Court previously also for regular bail. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. 4955 of 2025 by this Court in view of commercial quantity of the contraband i.e. 28.100 Kg. Ganja recovered from the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation in this case is completed and charge sheet has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76447 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026 2/3 submitted. Even charge has been framed and the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence.

5. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for about one year and five months i.e. since 28.09.2024.

6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

9. Considering the commercial quantity of recovered contraband from the house of the petitioner, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

11. The petitioner has already been in custody for about one year and five months and trial is in progress. However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India demands that there should be expeditious trial. Hence, learned court below is directed to conclude the trial within next eight months failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

12. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, is also directed to ensure that the witnesses in this case appear before

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76447 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026 3/3 learned court below for their examination as prosecution witnesses.

13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj as well as learned trial court.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/- U T