Patna High Court
Rahul Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage as the trial was nearing completion, but allowed the petitioner to seek renewal of bail after one month if the trial remained pending.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Ranjan Kumar, sought regular bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 18, 27A, 29 and 62. The trial court had earlier rejected bail, directing the petitioner to re‑apply after three months if the trial remained pending. The Union of India informed the court that the case, previously fixed for judgment, had been transferred and was now scheduled for argument, with disposal expected within a month. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Patna High Court, noting that the trial was at its fag end, declined to grant bail at this stage but permitted the petitioner to renew the bail application after one month if the trial was still unfinished, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the NDPS Act at the stage of trial.
- Whether the pending status of the trial justifies granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner may renew the bail application after a specified period if the trial is not concluded.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 18, 18(B), 27(A), 27A, 29, 62, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- high court
- criminal procedure
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91365 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2023 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Rahul Ranjan Kumar S/O Manish Kumar Resident of Village - Dharhari, P.S -
Chiraiya, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India Through Narcotics Control Bureau, Department of
Internal Security Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the U.O.I. : Dr. K.N. Singh, A.S.G.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
N.C.B. (Government Official) Muzaffarpur Case No. 06 of 2023/
N.D.P.S. Case No. 151 of 2023 instituted for the offence under
Sections 8(c), 18, 27A, 29 and 62 of the N.D.P.S. Act and
cognizance has been taken under Sections 18(B), 27(A), 29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order
dated 04.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40157 of 2025 with an
observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer
for bail after three months if the trial is not concluded.
3. After some submissions, the learned counsel for the
Union of India has submitted that in this case, the case was
fixed for judgment, but during AGT, the P.O. has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91365 of 2025(6) dt.24-04-2026
2/2
transferred, and the case is now fixed for argument, and the
same will be disposed of within a month.
4. Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently
opposed the prayer of regular bail.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case that as the
trial is at its fag end, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail at this stage, however he may renew his prayer
for bail after one month if the trial is not concluded.
6. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same within the stipulated period of time.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…