2026:JHHC:8514 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 534 of 2026 1. Tuttu Kumar Saw, aged about 40 years, S/o – late Raj Kishore Saw, Resident of Tetar Toli, House No. 5, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. – Bariatu, District Ranchi 2. Lichu Mahato, aged about 26 years, S/o Hiralal Mahato, Resident of Kulajanga, P.O. – Jargo, P.S. – Puruliya, District – West Bengal … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate --- 07/25.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are in custody since 24.11.2025 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.282 of 2025, registered under Sections 21 (c ), 27 (b) (ii), 18 (c ) of NDPS Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge NDPS, Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no.1 is only running a thela and is not the owner of Janta Meat Shop from where there is alleged recovery of 20 bottle of 100 ml Wincerex cough syrup. She has further submitted that the procedure prescribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has not been properly followed and no case is made out against the petitioners. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he is the assistant of petitioner no.1 in running the thela. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that commercial quantity of objectionable material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners and petitioner no.1 has 2 criminal antecedents, whose reference has been made in paragraph 57 of the case diary, which has been produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also gone through the criminal antecedent report of petitioner no.1 during the course of hearing. 2026:JHHC:8514 2 5. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that it has been inadvertently mentioned in the counter affidavit that the criminal antecedent is against petitioner no.2 and not petitioner no.1. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the alleged recovery of commercial quantity of objectionable material from the possession of the petitioners, and petitioner no.1 is also having criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 7. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:25.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:28.03.2026