Dismissed¶¶16

Shekh Kalam @ Kalam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Mar 2026B.A./2240/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi - B.A. No. 2240 of 2026 - Shekh Kalam @ Kalam v. The State of Jharkhand - bail application rejected - NDPS offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 - Rail (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025(N) / NDPS Case No. 143 of 2025 - custody since 21.05.2025 - trial at evidence stage, no witness examined - earlier bail rejected in B.A. No. 7433 of 2025 dated 29.08.2025 - serious nature of allegation - direction to State for prompt production of witnesses - order communicated to Director Prosecution and Railway SP Ranchi - Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - decided 20.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; bail refused. Directions issued to the State to ensure prompt production of witnesses and to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and Railway SP, Ranchi. ¶¶16

Shekh Kalam @ Kalam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; bail refused. Directions issued to the State to ensure prompt production of witnesses and to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and Railway SP, Ranchi.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 21.05.2025 in NDPS Case No. 143 of 2025 arising out of Rail (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025(N) for the alleged offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of NDPS, should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

After hearing learned counsel and considering the serious nature of the allegation, this Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses.ratio¶¶17
Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and the Railway Superintendent of Police, Ranchi; a soft copy is to be sent to the office of the learned Advocate General to ensure compliance, and a copy to the court concerned through FAX/E-mail.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 2240 of 2026, decided 20.03.2026 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.). Regular bail application by Shekh Kalam @ Kalam, aged 28, in custody since 21.05.2025 in connection with Rail (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025(N), corresponding to NDPS Case No. 143 of 2025, for the alleged offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of NDPS pending before the Principal Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Trial stated to be at the evidence stage with not even a single witness examined; petitioner's earlier bail application had been rejected in B.A. No. 7433 of 2025 vide order dated 29.08.2025. Considering the serious nature of the allegation, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the application; however, the State was directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses, and the order was to be communicated to the Director, Prosecution and the Railway Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, with a soft copy to the Advocate General's office and a copy to the court concerned through FAX/E-mail.

¶1

2026:JHHC:7831

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 2240 of 2026

¶4

Shekh Kalam @ Kalam, age-28, S/o: Shekh Usman, R/o: Utari Patjirwa, Ward No. 9, P.O. & P.S.-Patjirwa, District-West Champaran, Bihar. … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : None

¶9

¶10

04 /20.03.2026

¶11

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶12

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the State.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2025 in connection with Rail (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025(N), corresponding to NDPS Case No. 143 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 of NDPS pending in the court of learned Principal Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is running at the stage of evidence, but not even a single witness has been examined. He has also submitted that the bail application of petitioner has been rejected earlier by this Court in B.A. No. 7433 of 2025 vide order dated 29.08.2025.

¶15

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶16

6. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶17

7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses.

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:7831

¶20

8. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the Railway S.P Ranchi, who would be responsible for production of witnesses in this case.

¶21

9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Railway Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

¶22

10. As nobody appears on behalf of the State, let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the office of learned advocate general to ensure compliance.

¶23

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶24

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶25

20.03.2026

¶26

Rakesh/Uploaded on:-25.03.2026

¶27

Shekh Kalam @ Kalam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekh Kalam @ Kalam 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Masum Alias Masum Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Management of M/S Neutral Publishing House Limited (Prabhat Khabar) Vs Shri Amrendra Kumar

Chhotu Paswan Alias Nishant Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Digambar Kumar Allias Digamber Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Xxx Vs the State of Jharkhand