Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11642 (JHR)

LALAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2586/2025 · 2025-07-11

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:JHHC:18901 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2586 of 2025 ------ Lalan Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/O Vishun Dangi, R/O Jokat, PO – Brindawan, PS – Chouparan, Jokat, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP ----- 04/ 11th July 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 8 (C ), 18, 21 (C ), 22, 25 of the NDPS Act, in connection with Arki P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned D.A.S.J – I, Khunti. 3. Allegation of illegal production of Opium and brown sugar as well as sale and purchase of it, is levelled against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is no material against him. He further submits that the accused persons who have been arrested, have given in details as to how they have been dealing with contraband drugs and from whom they have purchased and to whom they have supplied but they have not taken the name of this petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that one of the accused persons, namely, Tuleshwar Kumar and Birendra Kumar Dangi have stated that this petitioner also works with the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Dangi. ( 2025:JHHC:18901 ) 2 6. Considering the allegation therein and the involvement of the petitioner which transpires from the confessional statement of the co-accused, it is necessary to investigate the allegation properly even the presence of the petitioner is required for the same. Thus, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi