2026:JHHC:4639 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.11045 of 2025 Baijnath Mahto aged about 42 years, son of Tulsi Mahto, residents of village – Bilari (Hewai), P.O and Police Station – Keredari, District - Hazaribagh. …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P --------- 03/Dated: 18 th February, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The applicant, who is in custody since 07.01.2025, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No.04 of 2025, corresponding to NDPS Case No.12 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 17(b)/ 18(b)/ 22(b)/ 29 of the NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – VI, Hazaribagh. It appears that earlier the prayer for bail of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 14.08.2025, passed in B.A. No.2268 of 2025. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part. Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the charge has already been framed on 22.05.2025. It has further been submitted that the period of custody is the main ground for renewing the prayer for bail. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail stating that this applicant has criminal antecedent of similar nature. 5. From perusal of the status report, submitted by the trial court, it appears that out of 12 charge-sheeted witnesses, two have been examined till date. - 1 - B.A. No.11045 of 2025 2026:JHHC:4639 From perusal of record, it appears that this applicant has criminal antecedent of similar nature and that was the ground for rejection of his earlier bail application. 6. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected once again. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 18th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- Uploaded on 19.02.2026 - 2 - B.A. No.11045 of 2025