( 2026:JHHC:26102 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7930 of 2026 Shekh Kalam @ Kalam … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Aayushi Aman, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, APP --- 02/29.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2025 in connection with Rail (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 09/2025(N), corresponding to NDPS Case No. 143/2025 for the offences registered under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C)/29 of the NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Principal Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge (NDPS) at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected twice earlier and out of 07 witnesses, 05 witnesses have already been examined. The next date in the trial is 07.09.2026. The petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2025. The matter relates to alleged recovery of 19 Kg. of Ganja from the possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that after the rejection of the bail application of the petitioner, the co- accused namely Dharmendra, from whom 06 Kg. of ganja is alleged to have been recovered, has been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 26.05.2026 in B.A. No. 4524 of 2026. She has also stated that while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner on 20.03.2026, the prosecution was directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that trial is going on and witnesses are being produced. At the time of last rejection of the bail application of the petitioner on 20.03.2026 not even a single witness was examined and now 05 out of 07 witnesses have already been examined. He submits ( 2026:JHHC:26102 ) 2 that witnesses are being produced, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is 19 Kg. of recovery of ganja from the possession of the petitioner and bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit and the trial is going on, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. However, if the witnesses are not produced, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months from today. 7. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.08.2026 Uploaded on 31.08.2026 Binit/