Subhash Yadav @ Subhash Kumar v. Union of India through Narcotics control Bureau, , Patna
CR. MISC./87614/2025 · 2026-02-09
R P Mishra
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 44182 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 44182 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87614 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2023 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Patna ====================================================== Subhash Yadav @ Subhash Kumar Son of Hirdayanand Singh @ Hirdanand Yadav Resident of Village - Shahpur,Ward No. 2, P.S.- Shahpur, Bhojpur Ara, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus Union of India through Narcotics control Bureau, , Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prasoon Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NCB Crime No. 08 of 2023 (Special NDPS) No. 261 of 2023) instituted for the offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Earlier, on two occasions, vide order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20165 of 2024 and vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11456 of 2025, the regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the material placed on record against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 21.05.2023
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87614 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026 2/2 without any rhymes or reason. He further submitted that out of six prosecution witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.
6. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.
manish/- (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) U T