( 2026:JHHC:26199 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8072 of 2026 ------ Sani Kumari @ Shanni Kumari @ Shani Kumari, D/o Durgan Munda, age 28 years, R/o Village Haripiri, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Tamar, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus Union of India and Anr. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate : Jai P. Agrawal, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to ASGI For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 31.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025(S) arising out of N.C.B. Crime No. 02/NCB/RANCHI/2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 18(b)(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 760 gram of opium and along with the co-accused persons altogether 12.2 Kg of opium was recovered which comes under commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner and her brother Guruwa Munda were occupying the said house from where the recovery of opium was made in their absence. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.06.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner was absconding and only upon proclamation made under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the petitioner surrendered before the trial court. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-12 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the fact that the petitioner was absconding after recovery of the opium from her house goes to show that she was the person who kept the opium. It is next submitted that in view of the recovery of opium in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is attracted in this case. It is then submitted that, in the absence of any material to suggest that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being in illegal possession of opium for selling along with the co-accused persons in total weighing 12.2 Kg which comes under commercial quantity and in the absence of any material to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 31.08.2026 Sonu/