Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4456 (JHR)

SURAJ KUMAR SHARMA ALLIAS SURAJ SHARMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./2386/2026 · 2026-03-24

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:8289 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2386 of 2026 Suraj Kumar Sharma @ Suraj Sharma, aged about 31 years, son of Uma Kant Sharma, resident of Kamla Kant Road, Nowatoli, Near Pahari Mandir, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Aashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Advocate --- 04/24th March 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 594/2025 (N)/N.D.P.S. Case No. 02/2026 for the offence registered under Sections 21(b)/22/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only 2.24 gram of brown sugar is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted, but cognizance could not be taken for want of FSL report and the petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2025. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph 14 of the bail application. 3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there has been recovery from the possession of the petitioner. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that only 2.24 gram of brown sugar alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but the case is not proceeding for want of FSL report and the petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2025 and as per paragraph 14 of the bail application, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 2026:JHHC:8289 2 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 594/2025 (N)/N.D.P.S. Case No. 02/2026, subject to the following conditions: - (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner would deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number before the learned court below, which he shall not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 6. The learned court shall call for the criminal antecedent report of the petitioner and if any criminal antecedent is found, the petitioner shall not be released on bail. 7. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the concerned laboratory from where the FSL report is awaited. 9. It is expected that the concerned laboratory shall take necessary steps to forward the FSL report related to this case to the concerned court. 10. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e- mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.03.2026 Uploaded On: 25.03.2026 Mukul/-