This court rejected the petitioner's bail application in a N.D.P.S. case involving commercial quantity of poppy straw. The judge held that the serious nature of the charge and the commensurate risk of tampering or absconding precluded bail at this stage.
Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2026:JHHC:27847] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5111 of 2026
------
Suresh Vishnoi, aged about – 31 yrs, S/o. Kishna Ram Jee, R/o Wayad, P.O. & P.S.- Jatipur, Dist: Pali, Rajasthan
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P. ------
Order No.02 Dated-15-09-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.16 of 2025 arising out of Charhi P.S. Case No.119 of 2024 registered under Sections 15 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation of poppy straw and 606.030 Kg of poppy straw which comes under commercial quantity, was recovered in connection with this case. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-15 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is next submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the poppy straw being transported in the truck of which he is the driver. It is also submitted that so far as six witnesses have been examined. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.12.2024. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submit that all the six witnesses who have been examined, have supported the case of the prosecution and in view of recovery of poppy straw in commercial quantity, 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 offence alleged and that there is no chance of his being not involved in any offence while on bail, more so because there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail as well as the evidence that has come from the witnesses examined; the petitioner ought not be released on bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in view of involvement of Poppy Straw in commercial quantity 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 his not committing any offence while on bail as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Dated-15.09.2026-Animesh/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail in a case involving commercial quantity of poppy straw under the N.D.P.S. Act.
Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence justifying denial of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Vishnoi
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
