Patna High Court
Vinod DhanukversusUnion of India through intelligence officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna, Bihar.
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is rejected as there is no new ground and the trial is at an advanced stage.
Summary
Vinod Dhanuk petitioned for regular bail in an NCB case (Case No. 04 of 2022) involving offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25, 28, 29 and 35 of the NDPS Act, with an embargo under Section 37. This was his third bail application after two earlier rejections by the Patna High Court. The court noted that only three of the five charge‑sheeted witnesses had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude within six months, with no new ground presented for bail. The petitioner argued that he had been in judicial custody since January 2022 and cited a prior order allowing a six‑month window to renew bail if the trial was not completed. The State opposed the bail, and the court, finding no fresh material and the trial at an advanced stage, rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months and permitting a fresh bail application thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted at this stage of the NDPS trial in the absence of any new ground.
- Whether the progress of the trial and the embargo under Section 37 justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 25, 28, 29, 35, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- judicial custody
- trial delay
- embargo
- witness examination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2556 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2022 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Vinod Dhanuk Son of Kishun Dhanuk R/o Village - Ward no. 10, P.S. -
Shahpur, Dist. - Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Union of India through intelligence officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna,
Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Advocate
Mr. Akash Keshav, Advocate
Ms. Naina Nancy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh (C.G.C)
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NCB
Case No. 04 of 2022, instituted for the offences under Sections
8(c), 21(c), 25, 28, 29 and 35 of the NDPS Act.
3. This is the third 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 11.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50202 of
2023 and was also rejected by this Court vide order dated
03.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85158 of 2024 taking into
consideration the recovery of contraband beyond commercial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2556 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
quantity coupled with embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act.
4. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, a
report dated 13.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that out of five charge-sheeted witnesses, only three
witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further reported
that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of six
months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 27.01.2022
without any rhymes or reason and has got five criminal
antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that previously vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 85158 of 2024, the petitioner was granted six months liberty
to renew his prayer for bail before the learned Court below if the
trial is not concluded within a period of six months.
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 aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2556 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
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 two months from today. If the trial is not concluded
within the period of two months, as stated above, the petitioner
will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the learned court
below.
9. The Director, NCB is directed to produce the
remaining two witnesses before the learned Court below as and
when required for conclusion of the trial within the stipulated
time.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.