Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39091 (JHR)

CHINTU SAW v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./7073/2025 · 2025-12-12

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:JHHC:37347 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 7073 of 2025 Chintu Saw, aged about 25 years, son of Hari Saw, resident of 74, Jamhara Road, Khurd, Chando, P.O. Chando and P.S. Peterwar, District-Bokaro ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. 04/ 12.12.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with NDPS Case No. 06 of 2025, corresponding to Peterwar P.S. Case No. 127 of 2025, registered under sections 20(b) (ii), 27(a) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychtropic Substance Act, 1985, pending in the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation is made that 76 kilogram contraband was recovered from the house of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner was not present in the house. He then submits that for the same occurrence three other cases have been lodged. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the house of the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner has refused to make signature on the seizure list. He further submits that quantity of contraband is commercial and in view of that anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that huge quantity of contraband has been ( 2025:JHHC:37347 ) recovered from the house of the petitioner which is commercial in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.12.12.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-