PRADEEP KUMAR ALIAS PRADEEP GANJHU v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./9332/2024 · 2025-03-03
Rajesh Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27181 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27181 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9332 of 2024 ---- Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Ganjhu, aged about 26 years, Son of Bigan Ganjhu, Resident of Village Chano, P.O & Police Station, Lawalong, District-Chatra
…. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. …. Opposite Party ----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ----
For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
: Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Adv.
For the State
: Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P. ----
05/Dated: 03rd March, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The applicant, who is in custody since 23.02.2023, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.16 of 2023, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.03 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 18, 27, 28 & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II- cum-Special Judge NDPS Cases, Chatra.
3. It is a case of commercial quantity of narcotics.
4. The prayer for bail of the applicant was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2023 passed in B.A No.3839 of 2023.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part.
6. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.
7.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
8. Report has been submitted by the Trial Court and the counter affidavit has been filed by the State. From perusal of the same, it appears that all the witnesses have been examined.
9. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected once again.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/- Uploaded