2026: JHHC:14339 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4026 of 2026 ------ 1. Abeta Raita aged about 24 years, son of Late Matiyo Raita, Resident of Village- Kesa Panka, P.O. & P.S.- Badgoda, Dist.- Ganjam, Odisha. 2. Kumara Gamanga aged about 27 years, son of Late Mojesh Gamanga, Resident of village- Dhobadi, P.O. & P.S. Surada, Dist.- Ganjam, Odisha. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P ------ Order No.2 Dated-12-05-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Koderma (Rail) P.S. Case No.14 of 2025, corresponding to NDPS Case No.08 of 2025, registered for the offences under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. This is the second journey of the petitioners with the prayer for regular bail as earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 passed in B.A. No.10439 of 2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only fresh ground is that the petitioners have remained in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be released on bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the mere fact that the petitioners have remained in custody for some more time, is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioners. It is next submitted that so far as seven witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution, hence, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail; keeping in view the overwhelming evidence that has come against the petitioners during the trial, hence, the petitioners ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as the submissions of the learned Spl. P. P. that all the seven witnesses examined during the trial, have supported the case of the prosecution and also the chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-12.05.2026-R. Kumar/ Uploaded on 14.05.2026