Dismissed¶20

Rohit Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2026B.A./1466/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Rajesh Kumar, J., 11.03.2026, B.A. No.1466 of 2026 — regular bail refused under Section 37 NDPS Act; commercial quantity recovery of 348 kgs poppy husk from tempo driven by applicant; offences under Sections 15(C), 22, 25 NDPS Act; Khunti P.S. Case No.76 of 2024 / NDPS Case No.47 of 2024; Special Judge NDPS Khunti; custody since 10.06.2024; third bail application after rejections dated 18.11.2024 and 01.08.2025; charge framed 12.08.2025, trial not commenced.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record, 348 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the tempo which was being driven by the applicant. ¶19

Rohit Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:6350

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No.1466 of 2026

¶4

¶5

Rohit Mahto, aged about 23 years, son of Arjun Mahto, resident of Village – Siladon, P.O.+P.S.- Khunti, District – Khunti, Jharkhand. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

…. …. Opposite Party

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. ----

¶13

02/Dated: 11^th March, 2026

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

¶15

2. The applicant who is in custody since 10.06.2024 has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.76 of 2024 corresponding to NDPS Case No.47 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 15(C), 22 and 25 of the NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge NDPS Act, Khunti.

¶16

3. The prayer for bail of the applicant has been rejected twice vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in B.A. No.7028 of 2024 and vide order dated 01.08.2025 passed in B.A. No.4154 of 2025 respectively by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This is third attempt.

¶17

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part.

¶18

5. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the charge has been framed on 12.08.2025 but till date not a single witness has been examined. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

¶19

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that 348kgs of poppy husk has been recovered from the tempo which was being driven by this applicant.

¶20

8. Considering the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the fact that there is recovery of commercial quantity, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby rejected once again.

¶21

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶22

Dated: 11^th March, 2026 Amar/Uploaded on 12.03.2026

Rohit Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Mahto v. 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

Ajay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshav Kumar Raut Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Yadav Allias Ashok Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hadish Miyaan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Manowar Alias Manowar Vs the State of Jharkhand