( 2026:JHHC:10798 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3172 of 2026 ------ Sudhir Kumar, aged about 42 years, s/o late Saligram Sahu, r/o Main Road, Murhu, P.O. & P.S.-Murhu, Dist.-Khunti (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shio Narayan Singh, Advocate : Mr. Peeyush Krishna, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 16.04.2026 I.A. No.5013 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to release the petitioner on provisional bail for three weeks from the date of his release from jail custody to attend the shraddh ceremony of his mother who died on 04.04.2026. Considering the fact that there is allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected twice earlier, this Court in not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail provisionally but this interlocutory application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the concerned jail authority to facilitate attending the shraddh ceremony of the mother of the petitioner with the escort of the police in accordance with law. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) B.A. No. 3172 of 2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 124 of 2024 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.261 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 15(C)/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected twice vide order dated 03.12.2024 in B.A. No. 6747 of 2024 and order dated 11.03.2025 in B.A. No. 1997 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons were transporting 80 kg of poppy husk which comes under commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and since the petitioner has been in custody for some more time, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the fact that poppy husk in commercial quantity was transported by the petitioner along with the co-accused persons, the rigor of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material 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, the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious allegation of direct nature against the petitioner of being involved in transportation of poppy husk in commercial quantity along with the co-accused persons and in the absence of any material 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 of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 16.04.2026 Gunjan-