Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6502 (PAT)

Lakhindra Sahni v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./3834/2026 · 2026-03-11

R P Mishra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3834 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2024 Thana- RAIL HAJIPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Lakhindra Sahni Son of Jaglal Sahni R/o Mohalla - Nakhas Chowk, P.S.- Hajipur Town, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akbar Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hajipur Rail P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)/20(c)/22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. Earlier vide order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44817 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the recovery of the contraband beyond the commercial quantity. 4. In compliance of the order dated 28.01.2026 a report dated 16.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that charges have been framed and summons have been issued Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3834 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 to witnesses for their examination but none of them have been examined till date. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.10.2024 without any rhymes or reason. 6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on. 8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournment. Alok Verma/- (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) U T