The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of Md. Tabeej, who was accused of selling Ganja. The court declined bail due to the serious nature of the offence, commercial quantity of drugs recovered, absence of guilt proof, and risk of absconding.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
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:27842 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5949 of 2026
Md. Tabeej, aged about 25 years, son of Md. Mustafa, resident of Village-Moglakhar, P.O.-Bundelkhand, P.S.-Nawada, Dist.Nawada, Bihar … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.04 Dated- 15.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.32 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 20(b) (ii) (B)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale of Ganja and in connection with this case in total 27.190 kg of Ganja which comes under commercial quantity has been recovered and seized by police and from the possession of the petitioner 9.440 kg of Ganja was recovered. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and though charge sheet has been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.03.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the recovery of Ganja 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 for this Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail more so, when there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence of the case; if admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being involved in sale of Ganja in commercial quantity and in the absence of any material for this Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence if admitted to bail as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail; this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
15.09.2026 Gunjan-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of trafficking Ganja in commercial quantity despite recovery of substantial quantity and absence of witnesses examined.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Tabeej
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
