Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjib Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81241 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2024 Thana- DANDKHORA District- Katihar ====================================================== Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjib Kumar Son of Luro Yadav R/o Salarpur, P.S. - Parbatta, Dist. - Khagaria, PIN - 851216.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dandkhora P.S. Case No. 83 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 20 & 22 of the NDPS 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5712 of 2025, taking into account the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81241 of 2025(2) dt.21-11-2025 2/2 petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.09.2024 without any rhymes or reason, having four criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that charge in this case is framed and only two out of six prosecution witnesses have been examined hitherto, hence, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner which is already decided by this Court on merit. 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 four months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of four months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T