( 2025:JHHC:16782 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4961 of 2025 ------ Haripado Manjhi, aged about 63 years, son of Late Bhola Manjhi, resident of Village-Manjhi Toli, Bundu, P.O. & P.S.-Bundu, District- Ranchi. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 24-06-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Arki P.S. Case No.28 of 2024 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.39(A) of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 15(c)/22/25 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner was involved in business of narcotic substance and used to sell poppy straw to several persons including Harekrishna Mahto and poppy straw of 104.8 kg recovered from Harekrishna Mahto and Harekrishna Mahto disclosed before police that the same was sold to him by the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-15 of this bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2025 as is evident from para-01 of this bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the Poppy Straw seized from the petitioner is in commercial quantity; the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be released on bail. It is next submitted that, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. It is lastly submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for bail, be rejected. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and recovery of narcotic substance in commercial quantity and in the absence of any material for this Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence if admitted to bail; this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/