Dismissed¶15

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2026B.A./11743/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand, B.A. No. 11743 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 11.03.2026 by Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Bail application rejected in Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.134 of 2023, offences under sections 18/22/25/27(a)/29/30 N.D.P.S. Act; recovery of 3.4 kg opium from petitioner's house; commercial quantity; Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS rigor invoked by Spl. P.P.; absence of reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty; risk of absconding and tampering with evidence; custody since 18.09.2025; advocates: Sarvendra Kumar, Ashok Kr. Singh (petitioner), V.K. Vashistha Spl. P.P. (State).

What did the court decide?

This is not a fit case to admit the petitioner to bail; the prayer for bail is rejected. ¶15

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:6370 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11743 of 2025

¶2

Santosh Kumar Yadav, aged about 29 years, son of Sri Jageshwar Yadav, resident of Village-Rajguruwa, P.O.-Jori, P.S.-Bashistha Nagar, Dist.-Chatra

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

Order No.03 Dated- 11.03.2026

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.134 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 18/22/25/27(a)/29/30 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation and sell of opium and 3.4 kg of opium was recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has no concern with the seized opium. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.09.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 04 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶13

The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that since the opium in commercial quantity has been seized so the rigor of Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to suggest that there are

¶14

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 as also considering the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.

¶15

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner 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 as also considering the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released 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.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

11.03.2026 Gunjan-

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taslim Raja Vs the State of Jharkhand

Din Dayal Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kulwant Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Haris Ansari @ Jahur Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Nurej Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Vikram Kumar Saw Alias Vikram Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand