Dismissed¶18

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Patel v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Jul 2026CR. MISC./29915/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS regular bail rejected - Patna High Court (Partha Sarthy, J), Cr. Misc. No.29915 of 2026, dt. 03-07-2026; Sonbarsa P.S. Case 461/2022, Sitamarhi; Ss. 8, 20(b)(ii)(C), 22 NDPS Act; alleged 105 kgs ganja-like substance recovery; custody since 17.12.2022; earlier rejections incl. order dt. 19.12.2025 in Cr. Misc. 66821/2025; s.313 Cr.P.C. stage per trial Court report dt. 7.5.2026; trial ordered to conclude within three months; co-accused Ranjan Kumar Patel reported enlarged on bail.

What did the court decide?

No bail to petitioner; learned trial Court directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months. ¶18

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Patel Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail to petitioner; learned trial Court directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.461 of 2022 (registered under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C) and 22, N.D.P.S. Act) on his renewed prayer, given the alleged 105 kgs ganja-like substance recovery and the trial nearing conclusion. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Regular bail refused: taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner and one another of recovery of 105 kgs of ganja-like substance, together with the trial having reached its conclusion, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the application.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Consequential direction: the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months.

¶20-21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Partha Sarthy, J (oral order, 03-07-2026), Criminal Miscellaneous No.29915 of 2026 arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.461 of 2022, Sitamarhi (Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C) and 22, N.D.P.S. Act): the petitioner's renewed prayer for regular bail was REJECTED. Prosecution case: 105 kgs of ganja-like substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner and one other. Petitioner in custody since 17.12.2022; earlier bail prayers had been rejected, lastly on 19.12.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.66821 of 2025 with a direction to conclude the trial within three months; counsel submitted that more than six months had elapsed without conclusion and that co-accused Ranjan Kumar Patel had been enlarged on bail. Per the trial Court's report (letter dated 7.5.2026 of the District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sitamarhi), all prosecution witnesses had been examined and the case was pending recording of the section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the trial being near conclusion. Considering the serious recovery allegation together with the trial having reached its conclusion, the Court declined bail and directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within three months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29915 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-461 Year-2022 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi

¶3

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

¶4

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Patel Son of Raghunath Patel Resident of VillageSonbarsa Patel Nagar Ward No. 7, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶8

3 03-07-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of

¶11

regular bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case no.461 of 2022, registered under sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C) and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, 105 Kgs of ganja like substance was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and one another.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on earlier occasions, the last being vide order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. no.66821 of 2025 directing the learned Court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of three

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29915 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026 2/3

¶15

months. Inspite of more than six months having passed, the trial has still not concluded. It is submitted that co-accused Ranjan Kumar Patel has been enlarged on bail. The petitioner having remained in custody since 17.12.2022 and not having any criminal antecedent, he be enlarged on bail.

¶16

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

¶17

A report was called for from the learned trial Court with respect to the stage of the trial. As per the report received contained in letter dated 7.5.2026 of the District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sitamarhi, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and as on the date of the report i.e. 7.5.2026, the case of was pending for recording of statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The report further states that the trial is near its conclusion and an extension of 1-2 months has been sought for.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner and one another of recovery of 105 Kgs of ganja like substance together with the trial having reached its conclusion, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29915 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026 3/3

¶20

Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial

¶21

within a period of three months.

¶22

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶23

sauravkrsinha/-

¶24

U T

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Patel v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Patel 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

Vauelal Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Binda Prasad @ Patashi Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Shanti Kuwr @ Shanti Kuer @ Shanti Kunwar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar