In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged his detention, arguing lack of material against him beyond co-accused statements. The High Court rejected the bail prayer, citing the commercial quantity of NDPS drugs involved and high bail risks.
Prayer for release on bail of the petitioner was 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:27748] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8606 of 2026
------
Salman Sheikh @ Salman Sk, aged about-36 years Son of Sukuruddin Shekh, Resident of Village- Fulwariya, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sumeet Anand, Advocate Mr. Manish Kr. Paswan, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
Order No.02 Dated-15-09-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No.181 of 2026 registered under Section 21 and 27 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 sale of M.D.M.A. Drugs and 13.7 gm of M.D.M.A. Drugs which comes under commercial quantity, sold by the petitioner to the co-accused persons, has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that except the confessional statement of the coaccused persons, there is no other material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in three other cases. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.06.2026. 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 since the M.D.M.A. Drugs, has
been recovered in connection with this case, comes under commercial quantity, hence, 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; the petitioner ought not be released on bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in view of involvement of M.D.M.A. Drugs 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 being not committing any offence while on bail as well as his chance of 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 a petitioner charged with selling MDMA drugs in commercial quantity is entitled to bail.
Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act justify rejection of bail in commercial quantity cases.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Salman Sheikh @ Salman Sk
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
