Original bail application in NDPS case involving 49 kg commercial quantity ganja. Court rejected second bail petition citing overwhelming prosecution evidence, commercial quantity, and high risk of absconding under Section 37 rigors.
Petition for regular bail 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:27622 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8518 of 2026
------
Prafull Rana, aged about 35 years, S/o-Makardhwaj Rana @ Makardhawaj Rana, R/o Surkamata, P.O. & P.S.-Ghantapoda, Dist.Boddah, Odisha-762018.
.... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P ------
Order No.02 Dated- 14-09-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024 arising out of Daltonganj P.S. Case No.119 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2024 in B.A. No. 8917 of 2024.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in purchase and sale of Ganja and 49 Kg of Ganja which comes under commercial quantity has been seized in connection with this case. It is next submitted that from the possession of the petitioner only 12 Kg of Ganja was recovered. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and so far, four witnesses have been examined. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that all the four witnesses so far examined during the trial have supported the case of the prosecution and in view of the overwhelming evidence that has come through the four witnesses examined in this case, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding
and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail and the prayer for regular bail of the co-accused Tapas Kumar Malla has been rejected. It is next submitted that in view of the recovery of Ganja in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is attracted in this case. It is then submitted that, in the absence of any material to suggest that there are 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, the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being involved in purchase and sale of 49 Kg of Ganja which comes under commercial quantity and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence as well as in the absence of any material to be satisfied that there are 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, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
14/09/2026 Abhiraj/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given the commercial quantity of drugs alleged against him and strong prosecution evidence.
Whether the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act attract in view of commercial quantity involvement.
Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prafull Rana
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
