Mohit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Aug 2025CR. MISC./47903/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47903 of 2025, order dated 08-08-2025, Justice Shailendra Singh. Regular bail allowed in NDPS commercial-quantity ganja case (Bathnaha PS Case No. 225 of 2022, Sitamarhi; Section 414 IPC and Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C)/22(b)/23 NDPS Act) on third attempt after rejections on 24.04.2023 and 07.02.2025; grounds: prosecution delay (PW-4 last examined 13.05.2024; 32 dates; two witnesses absent), custody about 3 years since 20.08.2022; Article 21 urged by defence; bail bond Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail: petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 225 of 2022. ¶¶21

Mohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 225 of 2022 (S.414 IPC; Ss.8/20(b)(ii)(C)/22(b)/23 NDPS Act; alleged commercial-quantity ganja recovery) despite two earlier bail rejections, given the prosecution's failure over 32 dates to produce the remaining two witnesses since PW-4's examination on 13.05.2024 and his custody of about three years.

¶¶19

Court's answer

The court granted bail principally on account of the prosecution's lingering attitude in producing and examining witnesses: PW-4 was last examined on 13.05.2024 and, per the petitioner's counsel, 32 dates thereafter yielded no appearance of the remaining two witnesses.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the petitioner's present custody period of about three years, the court was inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Shailendra Singh, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47903 of 2025, decided 08-08-2025: regular bail granted to Mohit Kumar in Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 225 of 2022 (District Sitamarhi) registered under Section 414 IPC and Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C)/22(b) and 23 NDPS Act involving recovery of commercial quantity of ganja. Third attempt at bail — earlier prayers rejected on 24.04.2023 (Cr. Misc. No. 1868 of 2023) and 07.02.2025 (Cr. Misc. No. 84002 of 2024). Court moved mainly by the prosecution's lingering attitude in producing/examining witnesses — of six witnesses, four examined, PW-4 Mantu Kumar Singh last examined on 13.05.2024 and 32 subsequent dates failing to secure the two remaining witnesses — together with the petitioner's custody of about three years since 20.08.2022 (defence invoking Article 21 of the Constitution). Enlarged on bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47903 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2022 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mohit Kumar S/o Maujelal Bhagat R/o Village- Harpur Ward No. 04, P.S.Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 843106

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohd Rustam Hussain, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh, APP. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 08-08-2025

¶12

Heard Mr. Mohd Rustam Hussain, learned counsel for

¶13

the Petitioner and Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.

¶14

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 225 of 2022 dated 19.08.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C)/22(b) and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

¶15

3. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel are that this is third attempt of the petitioner for getting the relief of bail and his earlier prayers were rejected vide orders dated 24.04.2023 and 07.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 1868 of 2023 and 84002 of 2024, respectively. Though, the instant matter relates to the recovery of commercial quantity of ganja from the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47903 of 2025(4) dt.08-08-2025 2/3

¶17

possession of this petitioner, however, the petitioner has now renewed his prayer on the ground that prosecution has been completely negligent in examining and producing its witnesses. It is further submitted that six persons have been shown as witnesses of the prosecution before the trial court out of them four have been examined and last witness Mantu Kumar Singh was examined on 13.05.2024 and thereafter the trial court has given 32 dates to the prosecution to produce and examine the remaining two witnesses even then none of them has turned up. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 20.08.2022 and he is a young person having fair and clean antecedent and he has never remained involve in any similar type of cases and there is likely to be a delay in the conclusion of the trial of the petitioner, so, in view of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he now deserves a lenient approach from this court.

¶18

4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶19

5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and mainly taking into account the prosecution's lingering attitude in producing and examining the prosecution witnesses and as per the trial court’s report, the last witness, PW-4 was examined on 13.05.2024 and thereafter, as per the the petitioner’s counsel, 32 dates have been given for examination of remaining two witnesses

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47903 of 2025(4) dt.08-08-2025 3/3

¶21

but they have not turned up before the trial court and also taking note of the petitioner’s present custody period which is about 3 years this court is now inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 225 of 2022.

¶22

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶23

siddharthkr/BKS

¶24

U T

Mohit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakuntala Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sri Krishna Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Kapildeo Pandit Vs The State of Bihar

Dhiraj Singh @ Dhiraj Kumar Prabhakar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Asgar Ali Vs The State of Bihar