2025:JHHC:16462 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7436 of 2024 1. Niraj Kumar Mahtha @ Niraj Chaudhary, 2. Dhiraj Chaudhary @ Dhiraj Mahtha, Both sons of Bablu Mahtha and R/o Salonatand, PO: Deoghar, PS: Deoghar Town, District Deoghar. ….. Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP ----- 04/23.06.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 386 of 2024, for the offences punishable under sections 21(a), 20(B) IIA of N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 4. It is alleged that some persons were selling some contraband materials such as Brown Sugar and Ganja. One Rohit Mahtha was arrested and from his possession some materials were recovered and he disclosed that the petitioners were his associates. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Dhiraj Mahtha has already filed an FIR against the uncle of Rohit Choudhary and that is why they have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. After hearing the parties I find that name of the petitioners has come on the confessional statement of co-accused but the fact which cannot be denied is that there is an allegation that they were dealing with contraband materials like Brown Sugar and Ganja. Petitioner no.1 was the owner of the motorcycle which was seized. Further, the fact that the 2025:JHHC:16462 petitioner no.1, Niraj Kumar Mahtha, has got four criminal antecedents of like nature and the petitioner no.2, Dhiraj Chaudhary, has also got one criminal antecedent. In view of aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 7. Hence, their prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed. 8. IA No. 4615 of 2025 is also dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/