Dismissed¶¶14

Dilip Horo v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2026B.A./3231/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail rejected; poppy husk 1971.75 kg commercial quantity; Bandgaon P.S. Case no. 16 of 2023 (S); Sections 15(c)/18/25 and Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985; rigors of Section 37; parity plea with co-accused (B.A. No. 8636 of 2023, order dated 20.06.2024) not accepted; custody since 06.11.2025; Bolero pick up van seizure; Khunti; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; B.A. No. 3231 of 2026; decided 10.06.2026 by Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; prayer for bail dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner and the recovery of poppy husk in commercial quantity, the Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. ¶¶13

Dilip Horo Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[ 2026:JHHC:16748 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3231 of 2026

¶2

Dilip Horo aged about 27 years S/o Jairam Horo R/o villageRemta, P.Ο.-Tarosiladon, P.S.- Khunti, Dist- Khunti

¶3

… Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. PP

¶7

03 / 10.06.2026

¶8

Heard the parties.

¶9

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case no. 16 of 2023 (S) instituted under Section 15(c)/18/25 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was getting transported 1971.75 kg of poppy husk, which comes under commercial quantity, in his Bolero pick up van, which was seized by police. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 06.11.2025 , as mentioned in para 5 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is next submitted that the coaccused with similar allegations has already been admitted to bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.06.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8636 of 2023 hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

¶11

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that

¶12

allegation against the co-accused person, who has been granted bail, stands on a different footing than that of the petitioner of this case and keeping in view the fact that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner is the kingpin who was organizing the transportation of poppy husk for its sale; there is every chance of him absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is next submitted that the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations and that there is no chance of him being not involved in any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be released on bail. It is lastly submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for bail, be rejected.

¶13

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and recovery of poppy husk in commercial quantity and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations or that there is no chance of him not committing any offence if admitted to bail; this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.

¶15

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶16

Dated 10.06.2026

¶17

Smita/-

Dilip Horo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Horo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uma Shankar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jetha Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Munda @ Abhishek Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashutosh Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand