( 2025:JHHC:15405 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3938 of 2025 ------ Nilesh Kumar Soni @ Nilesh Soni @ Pawan Soni @ Parle Ji, Age -30, S/o Munna Prasad, R/o –Kishoreganj, Road No. 2, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. –Sukhdeonagar, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 12.06.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.207 of 2024(S) registered for the offences punishable under sections 21(b)/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sell and purchase of brown sugar and 7 grams of brown sugar has been recovered from the co-accused –Pradeep Kr. Singh @ Sanjay but the petitioner is involved in four other cases of alleged sale and purchase of brown sugar. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that charge has already been framed against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.10.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is a habitual peddler of drugs and there is every chance of the petitioner again indulging in sale and purchase of brown sugar, if released on bail. It is next submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. that the prayer for bail of the co-accused –Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Sanjay has already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2024. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/