Dismissed¶17

Ramesh Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Bail – NDPS Act

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2026B.A./484/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected by High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (B.A. No.484 of 2026, decided 20-07-2026, Anil Kumar Choudhary J.). Petitioner Ramesh Mahto, alleged Khalasi in truck carrying 250 kg ganja (commercial quantity), NDPS Case No. 04 of 2025, Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29 NDPS Act; S.37 rigors applied; 4 witnesses supported prosecution; custody since 21.02.2025; NCB Ranchi Zonal Unit and State opposed bail.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that, in the absence of any material showing any reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied. ¶16

Ramesh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:21412] THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.484 of 2026

¶2

------

¶3

Ramesh Mahto, aged about 45 years, Son of Late Govind Mahto, resident of Village Bibinganj, P.O. Udawatnagar & P.S. Gajrajganj, District-Bhojpur (Bihar). .... .... …. Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Union of India through NCB, Ranchi Zonal Unit having its office at Near Harmu, Chowk, Ranchi, 834002.

¶7

.... .... .... Opposite Parties.

¶8

------

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl.P.P For the N.C.B. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to A.S.G.I.

¶11

Order No.03 Dated- 20-07-2026

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation of Ganja in his truck in which he was a ‘Khalasi” and 250 kilograms of Ganja which comes under commercial quantity has been recovered. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that 04 witnesses have been examined in this case, who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner does not know about his criminal antecedents and he has been in custody since 21.02.2025 as mentioned in para-09 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶15

The learned Addl.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the recovery of Ganja in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS is attracted in this case and in absence of any material to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail more so 04 witnesses have been examined during trial of the case who have supported the case of the prosecution, as also the fact that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail; the petitioner ought not be released on bail.

¶16

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in the absence of any material to show any reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and also the fact that 04 witnesses who have already been examined in this case have supported the case of the prosecution as also the chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.

¶17

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

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

20/07/2026 Amar/

Ramesh Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Mojid Mandal @ Abdul Majid Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Kumar Bosa @ Aklkesh Bosa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jeki Kalindi Alias Jeki Dom Alias Jaiki Kalindi Alias Jaikey Dome Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mir Abid Alias Dillu Vs the State of Jharkhand