← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76940/2025rejected

Kamlesh Singh Bhokta v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-24Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76940 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2025 Thana- DHANGAI District- Gaya ====================================================== Kamlesh Singh Bhokta S/O Janki Singh R/O Vill.- Pakriya, P.S.- Dhangai, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Rina Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that 76.900 kgs. of Doda (Poppy Straw) is said to have been recovered from the wodden roof of the mud house of the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case showing recovery of 76.900 kgs of Poppy Straw from his mud house. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Birju Yadav has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76940 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.63053 of 2025 on the ground that the recovery was made from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 06.07.2025, with no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition on the ground that the seized contraband is more than of commercial quantity and the same has been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantity of seizure and the place of recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and in case no substantial progress is being made within six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T