( 2026:JHHC:17607 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3531 of 2026 ------ Tanweer Akhtar, aged about 42 years, s/o late Azim Khan @ Azim Khan, r/o Nazir Ali Lane, Church Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Lower Bazar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Ms. Malsi Pathak, AC to P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 17.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.45 of 2026(N) registered for the offences punishable under sections 248/249/61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 21/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in planting 18.82 grams of brown sugar in the vehicle of one Divan Midha only because he was having inimical term with Divan Midha. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is involved in 11 other cases and the petitioner has been planted in this case. It is next submitted that none of the 11 cases in which the petitioner is involved is in connection with any offence punishable under the internal provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that out of 11 cases, in five cases the petitioner has been acquitted and in other cases he is on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being in illegal possession of brown sugar and used the same in planting in the vehicle of the person with whom he was having inimical term as well as his criminal antecedent, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 17.06.2026 Gunjan-