2026:JHHC:7875 Page | 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11871 of 2025 --------- Abhishek Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Pintu Prasad, resident of Village Dema, P.O. Dema, P.S. Mohanpur, District Gaya (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party With B.A. No. 12002 of 2025 --------- Sachin Kumar, Aged about 21 years, Son of Late Sanjay Kumar Verma, Resident of: Village-Lowagada, P.O.-Chatra, P.S.-Chatra, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party --------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey No. 2, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. ---------- 03/Dated:18thMarch, 2026 1. Both these instant applications have been filed under Sections483 & 484 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 215of 2025 registered under Sections18(b), 21(a), 22(a), 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending in the court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge NDPS Act, Hazaribagh. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that merely on the basis of the false allegation, the petitioners have been implicated in the instant case. 2026:JHHC:7875 Page | 2 3. It has been further submitted that, no incriminating article has been recovered from the person or possession of the petitioners and they have no criminal antecedent. 4. Further it has been submitted that both these petitioners are in custody since 21.10.2025 in connection with this case. 5. On the aforesaid score the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that prayer for bail of these petitioners may be allowed. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the opposite party-State although has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the petitioners are named accused in the F.I.R. and they were alleged to have indulged in illegal sell and purchase of brown sugar., therefore the prayer for bail of the present petitioners are not fit to be allowed. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It requires to refer herein that vide order dated 05.02.2026, the case diary of the instant case was called for and the same has been received and kept on record. 9. It is apparent from the case diary that the petitioners are named accused in the F.I.R. and it has been alleged that they have indulged in illegal sell and purchase of brown sugar. 10. It is apparent from the seizure list that, total 40.00 gm brown sugar kept in white plastic, recovered from the vehicle and joint possession of the petitioners. Further the allegation has been 2026:JHHC:7875 Page | 3 corroborated by the witnesses which would be evident from at para 3, 4, & 5 of the case diary. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, the nature of allegation, and that of recovery of brown sugar more than small quantity, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 12. Accordingly, both these bails applications stand rejected. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 18th March, 2026 Samarth