[2026:JHHC:21412] THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.484 of 2026 ------ Ramesh Mahto, aged about 45 years, Son of Late Govind Mahto, resident of Village Bibinganj, P.O. Udawatnagar & P.S. Gajrajganj, District-Bhojpur (Bihar). .... .... …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Union of India through NCB, Ranchi Zonal Unit having its office at Near Harmu, Chowk, Ranchi, 834002. .... .... .... Opposite Parties. ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl.P.P For the N.C.B. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to A.S.G.I. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 20-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation of Ganja in his truck in which he was a ‘Khalasi” and 250 kilograms of Ganja which comes under commercial quantity has been recovered. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that 04 witnesses have been examined in this case, who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner does not know about his criminal antecedents and he has been in custody since 21.02.2025 as mentioned in para-09 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. The learned Addl.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the recovery of Ganja in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS is attracted in this case and in absence of any material to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail more so 04 witnesses have been examined during trial of the case who have supported the case of the prosecution, as also the fact that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail; the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in the absence of any material to show any reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and also the fact that 04 witnesses who have already been examined in this case have supported the case of the prosecution as also the chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 20/07/2026 Amar/