Md. Mofil @ Mofil v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89596 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2024 Thana- Sri Nagar District- Purnia ====================================================== Md. Mofil @ Mofil Son of Md. Khalil Resident of Village- Kadgama, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Srinagar, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Srinagar P.S. Case No. 93 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 21(c) and 22(c) 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 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6937 of 2025 taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the recovery of contraband is beyond commercial quantity. 4.

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial is in progress and four witnesses have been examined in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89596 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026 2/2 this case. It is further mentioned in the order that charge has already been framed against the petitioner.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 10.12.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the impugned order, it appears that the trial is going on.

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 preferably within a period of three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T