[2026:JHHC:10200] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2894 of 2026 ------ Jidan Purti, aged about 22 years, Son of Sukhram Purti, Resident of Village- Bagma Tola Gidung, P.O. & P.S.-Murhu, District- Khunti, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 09-04-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.45 of 2021 arising out of Murhu P.S. Case No.75 of 2021 registered under Sections 08, 15 and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Firstly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 19.04.2022 in B.A. No. 13235 of 2021 and the second prayer for regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn by the co- ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 in B.A. No.1151 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no fresh ground and the only ground is that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.07.2021 as mentioned in para-18 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the facts the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merits as the petitioner was transporting 74 Kg of dodda and on the basis of confessional statement 251 Kg of Dodda was recovered, which comes under commercial quantity and there is no material on record to suggest that there are 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, 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 for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 19.04.2022 in B.A. No. 13235 of 2021. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 09/04/2026 Amar/