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. Vikas/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U