Patna High Court
Surendra Sah @ Surender SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is dismissed as no new ground has been presented, and the trial must be expedited.
Summary
Surendra Sah, a Nepalese national, was arrested on 18 January 2024 and charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He filed a second bail petition after the first was rejected on the ground of recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity and an embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court received a report indicating that summons and non‑bailable warrants have been issued against witnesses, none of whom have appeared, and that the trial is likely to conclude within nine months. The petitioner argued that he has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody without reason, while the State opposed bail. The court found no new ground to revisit the earlier decision, rejected the bail petition, and directed the lower court to expedite the trial to be completed within six months, allowing a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act in view of the circumstances of his custody and the status of the trial.
- Whether any new ground exists to merit a fresh consideration of bail after the earlier denial.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c), 25, 37
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug offences
- judicial custody
- trial delay
- non‑bailable warrant
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21705 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Surendra Sah @ Surender Sah S/o Lal Babu Sah @ Lalbabu Sa Kanu R/o
village- Kalaiya, PS- Kalaiya, Dist- Bara, Country Nepal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-05-2026 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Chhauradano (Mahuawa) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024, instituted
for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c) and 25 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 this Court vide order dated
01.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33386 of 2024 taking into
consideration the recovery of contraband beyond commercial
quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act.
4. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, a
report dated 09.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21705 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
2/2
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that summons and non-bailable warrant have already
been issued against the witnesses, but no any witness has turned
up for examination. It is further reported that the trial is likely to
be concluded within a period of nine months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18.01.2024
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.
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 six months from today. If the trial is not concluded
within the period of six 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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.