Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:4993 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11140 of 2025 ---------- Govind Rana ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp.Party ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ---------- 03/18.02.2026 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinit Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P. 2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No. 224 of 2025, instituted for the offence under Sections 317(5), 3(5) of B.N.S. and 15 (C), 18(b), 25, 27(a) of N.D.P.S. Act, now pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Hazaribagh. 3. As per F.I.R., lodged on the self-statement of the Informant who is the O/c of Chouparan Police Station, Hazaribagh, is that he received secret information that one Swift Dzire vehicle bearing registration no. JH- 01-EP-4454 was coming from the side of Chatra loaded with illegal Doda and then the said vehicle was intercepted although the Driver of the vehicle, i.e. the petitioner tried to flee away with the vehicle at high speed. On being apprehended, the driver revealed that a person namely Arvind Kumar of district Gidhour had asked him to hand over the said doda to some person in Danuwa Ghati Forest.It is alleged that in total 91.350 kg of doda in Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:4993 ) 2 seven plastic sacks and mobile phone were seized from that vehicle and seizure list was prepared. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and he has nothing to do with the trade or transportation of Doda and he was only the driver of the said car. It is submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge that there was Doda in the packets, which were loaded in the car and thus, provisions of Section 317(5) of BNS is not applicable against him. It is submitted that the seizure list witnesses are not independent witnesses as they are police personnel. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2025, i.e. for around Six months, hence he may be released on bail. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on the spot with contraband doda, of appromimately 91.350 kg., which is an intoxicant substant. It is submitted that the petitioner in involved in the trade of contraband doda. It is submitted that the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded at Para 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the case diary, have supported the case against the petitioner. It is submitted that the F.S.L. report is also awaited and hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record of this case, it appears that the petitioner has been arrested on the spot Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:4993 ) 3 with the Swift Dzire Car carrying 91.350 kg of contraband doda. 7. It appears that the petitioner along with others are indulged in illegal sale and purchase of contraband doda which is a narcotic substance and is used for intoxication. 8. From perusal of the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Spl. Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Hazaribagh, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1639 of 2025 filed in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No. 224 of 2025, by which the bail of the petitioner has been denied, it appears that the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded at Para 7, 11, 12, 13 & 14 of the Case Diary under Section 180 of BNSS, have supported the case against the petitioner. 9. It also appears from the said impugned order that as per Para 35 of the case diary, the sample of seized doda has been sent to F.S.L. and the report is awaited from F.S.L. 10. Under the circumstances and in view of the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 11. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 18.02.2026