2026:JHHC:21598 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3090 of 2026 ------ Aryan Singh, aged about 26 years, son of Sanjay Kumar Singh, resident of Joshi Colony, Lakrakhanda, P.O. Siwandih, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. ------ 02/22.07.2026 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 147 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 18(c), 27(d), 18(b), 28(a), 22(1), 22(3), 65(4) and 65(5) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 26(d) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and Section 318 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s New Sun Pharma, Chas, Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand. He next submits that admittedly no codeine based cough syrup has been recovered either from the premises of the petitioner or at his instance and in the absence of any seizure, the essential ingredients of ‘possession’ or ‘storage’ or ‘transport’ under the N.D.P.S. Act is not made out. He further submits that the allegations are made of commercial quantity of cough syrup only on the presumption. He next submits the petitioner is the wholesaler of the said area and the cough syrup in question has been sold to different shop owners. He further submits that earlier also the petitioner was implicated in one of the case in 2026:JHHC:21598 which the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that in the FIR, it has come that the petitioner has sold cough syrup having codeine to different shopkeepers however, during investigation when the shopkeepers were examined, they have denied about purchase the same from the petitioner and in view of that the petitioner has sold the cough syrup to the fake person and the allegations are made of selling 4000 bottles of New Phensedyl Cough Syrup having codeine. He also submits that the petitioner is having one criminal antecedent. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, when the documents were sought from the petitioner, the petitioner has produced the receipts showing that the cough syrup has been sold to different shop owners however, in the case diary in para 61 onwards, it has come that when the shop owners have been enquired about the said purchase, they have denied to purchase the same from the petitioner, prima facie suggests that the petitioner has sold 4000 bottles of codeine based cough syrup namely New Phensedyl Cough Syrup having commercial quantity to the forged person and the petitioner is having one criminal antecedent, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 22.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 24.07.2026