2026:JHHC:19504 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5667 of 2026 Randhir Kumar Verma @ Randhir Verma, Son of Naresh Verma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Advocate --- 04/3rd July 2026 1. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 250 of 2025 (N) corresponding to NDPS 146/2025 for the alleged offence registered under Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act and Sections 21(c), 29 N.D.P.S. Act, said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Commissioner- cum-Special Judge, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier withdrawn on 16.02.2026 in B.A. No. 9676/2025. The learned counsel submits that the co-accused, who is the wife of the petitioner, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.06.2025 in B.A. No. 4737 of 2025. 3. However, during the course of hearing, it is not in dispute that as per the allegation, commercial quantity of narcotic substances is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the co-accused, being a lady and having minor child, was granted bail by this Court, and the case of the petitioner cannot be considered on the same footing. A perusal of the bail petition itself reveals that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents. 2026:JHHC:19504 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that commercial quantity of narcotic substances are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. So far as the bail granted to the wife of the petitioner in B.A. No. 4737 of 2025 is concerned, her case is certainly on different footing as it was submitted in the said case that the petitioner therein is a housewife having two minor children, aged about six years old girl and one and half years old son. 7. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge has been framed on 15.01.2026 and out of seven charge-sheet witnesses only one has been examined. 8. There can be no excuse on the part of the State not to produce the remaining witnesses before the learned Court. 9. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses/material collected during investigation, expert report etc before the learned Court. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 03.07.2026 Uploaded On: 04.07.2026 Mukul/-