Sunil Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2025 in connection with Gumla P.S. case No. 370 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 21(b), 22(b), 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gumla.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is alleged that from the joint possession of three persons including the petitioner total 250 +8 = 258 grams of brown sugar has been recovered. He submits that though all the three persons were moving together, but they were independently searched and from one person 250 grams of brown sugar was recovered and from the other person 8 grams of brown sugar was recovered. So far as the petitioner is concerned, only one mobile phone was recovered and therefore, he submits that practically there is no recovery from the possession of the petitioner.

¶16

5. He also submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He has referred to paragraph 11 of the bail application.

¶17

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 19.03.2026 in B.A. No. 335 of 2026 whereby the person from

¶18

1

¶19

2026:JHHC:8067

¶20

whom 8 grams of brown sugar is alleged to have been recovered has been enlarged on bail.

¶21

7. Though, the learned counsel for the State is absent but counter affidavit has been filed in the present case. From paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

¶22

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the counter affidavit and also the fact that individually from the petitioner only one mobile was recovered and the co-accused namely Vikash Kumar Baitha has been enlarged on bail in B.A. No. 335 of 2026 vide order dated 19.03.2026, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 370 of 2025 on the following conditions:

¶23

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.

¶24

(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.

¶25

(iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.

¶26

(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

¶27

(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

¶28

9. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid

¶29

conditions.

¶30

2

¶31

2026:JHHC:8067

¶32

10. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶33

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶34

23.03.2026 Rakesh/Uploaded on:-25.03.2026

¶35

3

Sunil Prajapati v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Prajapati v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digambar Kumar Allias Digamber Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Xxx Vs the State of Jharkhand

Imran Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sintu Sharma Alias Sintu Kumar Sharma Alias Shintu Sharma Alias Shintu Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Israil Ansari Alias Monu Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand