(2026:JHHC:20267) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6355 of 2026 Ram Babu Sah, aged about 42 years, son of Sudeshi Sah, resident of Krishnapuri, Road No. 2, PO & PS – Chutia, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party ------ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No:- 05, Dated:- 09th July, 2026 Heard the parties. This is third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for grant of regular bail. Earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 passed in B.A. No. 8191 of 2025 and the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 3090 of 2026 by this Court. The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025(N), registered for the offences punishable under sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the N.D.P.S. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that in the meanwhile two witnesses have been examined but the petitioner has filed the deposition of only P.W.2 and has not filed the deposition of the other prosecution witness examined so far. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has remained in custody for a considerable period of time, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands and has suppressed the deposition of P.W.1 and in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the fact that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has earlier been rejected on merit and the witnesses so far examined during the trial, have supported the case of the prosecution and in view of the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated – 09.07.2026 Aditi