( 2026:JHHC:24504 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5085 of 2026 ------ Mangra Mahli, aged about 39 years, son of Sonaram Mahli, Resident of Village –Pirihatu, Post Office Saiko, Police Station –Saiko, District –Khunti, State –Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 14.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with NDPS P.S. Case No.52 of 2024 arising out of Saiko P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 18/22/25 of the NDPS Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 06.10.2025 in B.A. No. 4959 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was accused of being in illegal possession of opium in commercial quantity i.e. 3.163 Kg. It is further submitted that fresh ground is that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for regular bail when the opium recovered is undisputedly under commercial quantity and 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 admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the mere fact that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner which has already been rejected on merit. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 14.08.2026 Sonu/