Petitioner sought bail in a narcotics case involving 20 kg of Ganja recovery. The Court rejected bail due to commercial quantity recovery, risk of absconding, and lack of evidence suggesting innocence or that bail won't lead to further offences.
Prayer for bail rejected and petitioner denied bail.
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:27975 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8610 of 2026
------
Ravindra Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Late Ram Narayan Singh, resident of Simaria Bhindi, P.O.-Simaria, P.S.-Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur, Bihar.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P ------
Order No.02 Dated- 16-09-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Dhanbad G.R.P.S. Case No.63 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)B/29 of the NDPS Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his associate was caught at Dhanbad Railway Station, while transporting 20 kg of Ganja and 20 KG of Ganja was recovered from the petitioner and his associate, which comes under commercial quantity. It is next submitted that from the possession of the petitioner, 10 kg of Ganja was recovered which comes under intermediate quantity and police prepared two separate seizure lists; one in respect of the petitioner and the other in respect of his associate. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-15 of this bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and also undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant/victim or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.07.2025 as has been mentioned in para-16 of this bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the Ganja was recovered in commercial quantity; the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) 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 offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be released on bail. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. It is lastly submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for bail, be rejected.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with evidence as also 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; this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
16/09/2026 Abhiraj/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner arrested for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)B/29 of the NDPS Act arising from the recovery of 20 kg of Ganja.
Ravindra Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
