Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that there were no new grounds to grant bail and dismissed the application.

Summary

Ankit Kumar was arrested in connection with the recovery of 28.030 kg of ganja and charged under Sections 8, 23(c), 20(b), ii(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He applied for regular bail, which was rejected on 15.05.2025. He filed a second bail application, arguing that the trial was progressing and three witnesses had already been examined. The Patna High Court examined whether any new ground existed to revisit its earlier decision, considering the large quantity of narcotics involved. Finding no new ground and noting the seriousness of the offence, the Court dismissed the second bail application. The trial was directed to be expedited.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused despite the large quantity of narcotics recovered
  • Whether any new ground exists to review the earlier order denying bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • NDPS Act
  • narcotics
  • large quantity seizure
  • trial progress
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9429 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- HARPUR District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Kumar Singh Son of Dinesh kumar singh Resident of
                 Village - Yadavpur, PS. - Harsidhi, Dist. - East Champaran.

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    The Union of India through the Inspector General S.S.B. Head Quarter,
                 Frontier Region, Patna.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Abhishek Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Manoj Kumar
                                                  Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
                 For the Union of India   :       Mrs. Shail Kumari, CGC
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-02-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                 2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Harpur P.S. Case No. 10

                   of 2025. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was

                   rejected vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

                   31080 of 2025 which reads as under:-

                                                “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
                                   learned APP for the State.
                                                2. This application is for grant of regular bail in
                                   connection with Harpur P.S. Case No.10 of 2025, registered for
                                   the offences under Sections 8, 23(c), 20(b), ii(c), 25 and 29 of the
                                   NDPS Act.
                                                3. The recovery is of 28.030 kilogram of ganja.
                                                4. The petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2025 and
                                   he claims clean antecedent.
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9429 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                                                  5. Considering that the recovery is of huge quantity,
                                    I am not inclined to extend the privilege of regular bail to the
                                    petitioner.
                                                  6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

                                                  7. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. ”

                                 3. It has very fairly been submitted by the learned

                    counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and three

                    witnesses have already been examined.

                                 4. In view of the fact that the trial is progressing and

                    the considering the quantum of recovery, this Court finds no

                    new ground to review its earlier order.

                                 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.



                                                                 (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.