( 2026:JHHC:17315 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2939 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2939 of 2026 Suraj Oraon, aged about 30 years, Sex-Male, S/o Late Fulchand Oraon, R/o Village- Manjhi Toli, P.O. & P.S. Bundu, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Sonali Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. ----- 03/16.06.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Maranghada P.S. Case No.18/2024 corresponding to NDPS Case No.42(A)/2024, registered for the offence under Sections 15(c), 22, 25 of NDPS Act, pending in the Court of the learned Spl. Judge, NDPS at Khunti. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that the name of the father of the petitioner has not been disclosed. She next submits that only on suspicion, the name of the petitioner has been inserted in the FIR. On these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that on the pickup van, 552.600 Kg poppy husk was found and it was seized and the driver of the said vehicle has taken name of this petitioner saying that he has asked to take the said poppy husk to Birsa Chowk. He further submits that the allegations are there against the petitioner and in view of that, the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:17315 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2939 of 2026 5. It has come in the order of the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Khunti that in para 3 of the case diary, the driver of the pickup van has taken name of the petitioner and he has stated that this petitioner has sent him for loading poppy husk and told him to come to Birsa Chowk along with poppy husk where he will meet him. Further, the witnesses examined during the investigation have supported the case of the prosecution in paras 5, 6, 12 and 13 of the case diary. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 16th June, 2026 Ajay/