Harendra Choudhary@ Harindra Chauadhari @ Bullet Vs State of Jharkhand

[ 2026:JHHC:19768 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6193 of 2026

------

Harendra Choudhary @ Harindra Chuadhari @ Bullet, son of Sri Parama Chaudhary, aged about 31 years, resident of Machhaha, P.O. Bhitha, P.S. Bhitha, District West Champaran (Bihar).

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶8

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P

¶9

Order No.02 Dated-06-07-2026

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with NDPS Case No. 29 of 2025 arising out of Rail (H) Case No.02 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2025 passed in B.A. No. 3372 of 2025 and subsequently, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025 passed in B.A. No. 8119 of 2025.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sell and purchase of Ganja and from the co-accused persons, 29 Kg of Ganja which comes under commercial quantity, was recovered. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, charge has been framed in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.01.2025 as mentioned in para-1 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on

¶14

bail.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the allegation against the petitioner of being accused of an offence involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail; the petitioner is not entitled to bail. It is next submitted that keeping in view the racket run by the petitioner of Narcotic Drugs, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. It is lastly submitted that since the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025 passed in B.A. No. 8119 of 2025 and also the charge has been framed is an aggravating factor, hence, the same cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

¶16

Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner of being accused of an offence involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of commercial quantity and in the absence of any reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and also the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025 passed in B.A. No. 8119 of 2025 and also the fact that no witness has been examined though charge has already been framed, as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the bail of the above named petitioner at this stage.

¶17

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

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Dated:- 06.07.2026 Saroj/

Harendra Choudhary@ Harindra Chauadhari @ Bullet v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Choudhary@ Harindra Chauadhari @ Bullet v. 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

Fuliya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangal Deo Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Quraisha Khatoon Alias Kuresha Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Ram @ Nepali Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Kumar Barnwal Alias Ranjeet Kumar Varnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Krishna Priya Vs the State of Jharkhand