[2026:JHHC:12646 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 3527 of 2026 Harmeet Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Jagtar Singh, resident of Village Guru Ramdas Nagar, Tajpur Road, Bhamiya Khurd, P.O. & P.S. Jamalpur, District - Ludhiana (Punjab). … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari , Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP 02 / 29.04.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Pipratand P.S. Case No. 16 of 2025, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025 instituted under Section 18(b)/21(b)/21(c)/22(b) and 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as his earlier bail application was rejected on merit vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in B.A. No. 10271 of 2025 by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation of 314 of kg of Doda, which is also known as poppy straw, along with the co-accused person. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and though chargesheet has been submitted but cognizance has not been taken. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fresh ground is that the co-accused person has been granted bail. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 25.07.2025, as mentioned in para 17 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner be admitted to regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the seized Doda is in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations and that there is no chance of him being not involved in any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be released on bail. It is next submitted that; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. It is lastly submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for bail, be rejected. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merits and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations or that there is no chance of him not committing any offence if admitted to bail; this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is again rejected at this stage for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in B.A. No. 10271 of 2025. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 29.04.2026 Smita/-