[2026:JHHC:12672] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3547 of 2026 ------ Jaypal Paswan, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Parmeshwar Paswan, R/o Vill-Ghar-Masiyan Dih, P.O. & P.S. Bind, District—Nalanda, Bihar. ... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Navneet Anand, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 29-04-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jaldega (Bansjore O.P.) P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024, N.D.P.S. Case No. 06 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(i)(C), 22 of the NDPS Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merits by the co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.08.2025 in B.A. No. 3578 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that the during the trial three witnesses have been examined out of whom P.W.3 has supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that 26.91 Kg of Ganja like substance was recovered from the petitioner and the same has not been challenged in his cross- examination. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is recovery of Ganja in commercial quantity, hence, 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 suggest and there are reasonable grounds of believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he will not indulge in any offence if released on bail, as also keeping in view the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail; the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the evidence that has already come during the trial against the petitioner as well as absence of any material suggest that there is reasonable ground of believing that the petitioner has not committed the offence, hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected for same reasons for which is earlier bail petition was rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 29/04/2026 Amar/