2026:JHHC:6561 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1365 of 2026 Monu Kumar @ Monu Kumar Gupta aged about 23 years son of Ramchandra Sao @ Ram Chandra Saw, resident of Sajni, P.O. Jori, P.S. B. Nagar, Jori, District Chatra … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Advocate --- 09/23rd September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 342 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 111(2)(b) of the B.N.S. 2023 and sections 17(b), 21(b), 22(b), 27(a), 28, 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (NDPS) Case, Chatra 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 31.10.2025 and the charge has been framed on 01.06.2026. One witness has been examined on 07.07.2026 and thereafter no witnesses are being examined before the learned court. Out of five criminal antecedents, which have been mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioner has been acquitted in three of them and in the other two, he has been enlarged on bail. The bail orders as well as the orders of acquittal have been placed on record by filing the supplementary-affidavit. It is alleged that there is a recovery of 25.70 gram of Brown Sugar, which is intermediary quantity and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the bail order of the co-accused, namely, Sonu Kumar Gupta passed in B.A. No. 7252 of 2026, who was granted bail vide order dated 04.08.2026 and has submitted that in his case also, there are two criminal antecedents. 2026:JHHC:6561 2 Another co-accused, namely, Md. Rizwan Alam has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 5467/2026 vide order dated 19.06.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner and the perusal of the order dated 04.08.2026 passed in B.A. No. 7252/2026 reveals that a submission was made that no witness has been examined, although one witness was already examined on 07.07.2026. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner though acquitted in some of the cases, still has two criminal antecedents. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation of recovery of Brown Sugar from the possession of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner also has similar criminal antecedents, though he has been acquitted in some of the cases, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court. 7. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date in the trial is 1st October 2026. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.09.2026 Uploaded On: 23.09.2026 Mukul/-