[2026:JHHC:19029] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5791 of 2026 ------ Rahul Pandey aged about 22 years son of Manoj Pandey, Resident of Gidhour, Post and P.S.- Gidhour, District- Chatra .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.06 Dated-30-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No.84 of 2025 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.54 of 2025 registered under Section 111 (2), (b), 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 17 (c), 18 (b), 21 (c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer as earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 25.09.2025 and 16.04.2026 passed in B.A. No.8533 of 2025 and in B.A. No.1388 of 2026 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale and purchase of Brown Sugar which is also known as Heroin and from the co-accused persons 7.026 Kg of Brown Sugan and 6.87 Kg of liquid opium was recovered. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted two witnesses have been examined as yet and they have stated that from the possession of the petitioner, opium kept in a black coloured polythene was recovered whereas as per the seizure list, what was recovered from the petitioner was kept in a yellow colour polythene. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.06.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that though both P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their examination-in-chief have stated about recovery of opium from the petitioner but the same has not been specifically challenged in their respective cross-examinations and the consequence is that such portion of the statement of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 are to be considered as true. It is next submitted that the petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases. It is also submitted that the similar prayer of the co-accused namely Avinash Kumar, has also been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.325 of 2026. It is further submitted that in view of the seizure of Heroin in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged and that there is no chance of his being not involved in any offence while on bail, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, his criminal antecedent, the fact that the similar prayer of the co-accused namely Avinash Kumar, has also been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.325 of 2026 and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations and that there is no chance of his being not committing any offence while on bail as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-30.06.2026-Animesh/