Allowed¶20

Vinod Ram Alias Sodhan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2026B.A./2185/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vinod Ram @ Sodhan bail; NDPS Act Sections 21 22 29; Garhwa P.S. Case No. 626 of 2025; intermediate quantity brown sugar; Rahul Kumar 29.2 grams; bath room; no criminal antecedent; pairvikar bailor; close relative bailor; Aadhar Card mobile number condition; bail bond Rs. 25,000 two sureties; Principal District & Sessions Judge Garhwa; Anubha Rawat Choudhary; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; 2026:JHHC:7403; 18.03.2026

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 626 of 2025, subject to the imposed conditions. ¶20

Vinod Ram Alias Sodhan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 10.12.2025 in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 626 of 2025 (Sections 21, 22 & 29, N.D.P.S. Act), involving alleged recovery of an intermediate quantity of brown sugar, should be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering that the raid was conducted in the house of Rahul Kumar where the petitioner was also found, that an intermediate quantity of brown sugar is alleged to have been recovered, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Bail is granted subject to conditions: the learned court shall call for a report from the State on the petitioner's criminal antecedents and if any antecedent is found the petitioner shall not be released on bail; one bailor is to be the petitioner's present pairvikar and the other a close relative.

¶15

Key takeaways

Further conditions imposed: the petitioner will attend court on each and every date and on even a single default the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by him; he must deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card with mobile number (not to be changed without prior permission) and fully co-operate with the trial court proceedings.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (B.A. No. 2185 of 2026), High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided on 18.03.2026 by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary (single judge). Petitioner Vinod Ram @ Sodhan, in custody since 10.12.2025 in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 626 of 2025 registered under Sections 21, 22 & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and pending before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Garhwa, sought enlargement on bail. Counsel submitted that an intermediate quantity of brown sugar was allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession, whereas the raid was conducted in the house of Rahul Kumar, who was apprehended with 29.2 grams of brown sugar, the petitioner being found in the bath room; the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and the prosecution story was not disputed by the State. Considering these facts, the court enlarged the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, imposing conditions: the trial court to call for a State report on criminal antecedents (release barred if any antecedent is found), one bailor to be the petitioner's present pairvikar and the other a close relative, attendance on every date with cancellation of the bail bond on even a single default, deposit of a self-attested Aadhar Card copy and mobile number not to be changed without prior permission, and full co-operation with trial proceedings. The application was allowed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:7403

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 2185 of 2026

¶4

Vinod Ram @ Sodhan, aged about 54 years, S/O. Late Banshidhar Ram, Resident of Garhdevi Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, Dist. Garhwa … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶7

--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. S.T. Sajid, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, APP ---

¶8

02 /18.03.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2025 in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 626 of 2025, registered under Sections 21, 22 & 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, now pending in the court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Garhwa.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it has been alleged that intermediate quantity of brown sugar has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. However, as per the prosecution case itself, the raid was conducted in the house of Rahul Kumar and he was apprehended with 29.2 grams of brown sugar and petitioner was found in the bath room.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, but the prosecution story as narrated by the petitioner is not in dispute.

¶12

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the raid was conducted in the house of Rahul Kumar and the petitioner was also found there and it is alleged that intermediate quantity of brown sugar has been recovered coupled with the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, the petitioner is

¶13

2026:JHHC:7403

¶14

directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 626 of 2025, on the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The learned court shall call for a report from the State in connection with criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if any antecedent is found, the petitioner shall not be released on bail. (ii) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19