[2026:JHHC:22567] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7107 of 2026 ------ Saw Munda @ Mangal Huni Purty @ Mangra Huni Purty, aged about 22 years, Son of Debho Munda, Resident of Kotagada, P.O. and P.S. – Tebo, District – Singhbhum West. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-30-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Tebo P.S. Case No.07 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 27(a), 28, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale and purchase of opium seeds and from the co-accused person, 10 kg of opium seeds was recovered and the petitioner fled away on seeing the police personnel. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2026 as mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-09 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the fact that the opium in commercial quantity has been recovered in connection with this case, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail; the petitioner is not entitled to bail. It is next submitted that 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 to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in the absence of any reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 30.07.2026 Saroj/