Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12876 (JHR)

RUPESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2324/2026 · 2026-05-08

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:13969 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2324 of 2026 ------ Rupesh Kumar, aged about 26 years, son of Raj Kumar Saw, resident of Village Rasoia Dhamna, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribag .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Ms. Sonali Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. ------ 02/08.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 231 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 18(c), 20(b)(2) and 25 of NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.6918 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned court by way of filing a regular bail application. She submits that on the fresh ground, second anticipatory bail application has been filed. According to her, the petitioner is accused in another case and in that case the name of the petitioner has been deleted. On this ground, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application and the matter is arising under the NDPS Act. On this ground, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that the petitioner’s case was earlier considered on merit and thereafter, the petitioner has withdrawn the said A.B.A. with liberty to file regular bail application. Only because the petitioner’s name has been deleted in another case, that cannot be fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application, further the matter is under the NDPS Act, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 12.05.2026