[2026:JHHC:29039] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9081 of 2026 ------ Santosh Ram, aged about 23 years, Son of Late Chandradeo Ram, resident of Village Gawan, P.O. & P.S. Gawan, District- Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-28-09-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 15(c) and 25 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 of poppy straw and 480.27 kilograms of poppy straw was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-11 and has been in custody since 29.07.2025 as mentioned in para-12 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co- operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the recovery and the seizure of poppy straw in commercial quantity 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 for this Court 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 this Court 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 her 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:- 28.09.2026 Amar/