Abhishek Kumar v. The Union Of India Through Dri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2428 of 2026 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26015 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2024 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna ====================================================== Abhishek Kumar S/o Jagdish Mandal @ Jagdiesh Mandal R/o Village - Madhuban, P.O - Khesar, P.S - Belhar, District - Banka, State - Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through DRI Bihar 2.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Sr. S.C.

Mr. Sushant Srivastava, Advocate Mrs. Sonali Priya, Advocate Mr. Ankit kumar Singh, Jr. S.C.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Special Ccase No. 81 of 2024, arising out of F. No. DRI/LZU/PRU/718(ii)/ENQ-21/2024 in respect of DRI Patna Unit Case No. 09 of 2024-2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 & 29 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2428 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 dated 05.05.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26015 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 petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 14.06.2024 without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the DRI opposes the prayer for grant of bail. It is submitted that trial has commenced and two witnesses have been examined hitherto.

6.

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