Dismissed

Md. Sharuk Khan @ Saruk Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2026A.B.A./4212/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by Md. Sharuk Khan in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 26 of 2026 under the N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioner claimed false implication and alibi. The bench held that witness statements in the supplementary case diary supported the allegations of selling and consuming brown sugar. Considering these parameters, the court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Md. Sharuk Khan @ Saruk Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

 ( 2026:JHHC:27381 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4212 of 2026

¶3

Md. Sharuk Khan @ Saruk Khan, aged about 30 years, son of Jamshed Khan, resident of village Mandai Kala, P.O. and P.S. Lohsinghna, DistrictHazaribag (Jharkhand)

¶4

...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.

¶5

02/ 11.09.2026 : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶6

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 26 of 2026, registered under sections 21(b), 22(b), 27(a) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge NDPS Act, Hazaribag.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement. He further submits that the petitioner is not indulged in selling and consuming the brown sugar. He next submits that on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner was not present in Hazaribagh. He submits that though the motorcycle of the petitioner was seized from the place of occurrence however that motorcycle was taken by his friend. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that allegations are there of selling and consuming the brown sugar. She submits that in paras 36 and 37 of the supplementary case diary witnesses have supported the case and have stated that the petitioner used to go

¶9

 ( 2026:JHHC:27381 )

¶10

there to sell and consume the brown sugar.

¶11

Considering that in paras 36 and 38 of the supplementary case diary the witnesses have stated that the petitioner used to go there and was indulged in selling and consuming the brown sugar. There are parameters of granting anticipatory bail in the cases arising out of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

¶13

Dt.11.09.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶14

satyarthi-

Md. Sharuk Khan @ Saruk Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Sharuk Khan @ Saruk Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases