Allowed

Sunil Kumar Mehta @ Sunil Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Sept 2026B.A./8696/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, accused in an NDPS case involving sale of a small quantity of heroin (brown sugar), sought bail after being in custody since 14.07.2026. The court considered the small quantity involved, the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents, and his undertaking to cooperate with the trial and not disturb witnesses, and granted bail on specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, mobile number, Aadhaar card, and non-interference with witnesses.

Sunil Kumar Mehta @ Sunil Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:28091 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8696 of 2026

¶3

------

¶4

Sunil Kumar Mehta @ Sunil Mehta, aged about 20 years, Son of Sambhu Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village Kurha, P.O. Ichak, P.S. Ichak, District- Hazaribag.

¶5

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

¶7

------

¶8

Order No:-02 Dated:-17-09-2026

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 122 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(a)/22(a)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale of brown sugar which is also known as heroin. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seized heroin was in small quantity. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 14.07.2026, as mentioned in para 22 of this bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in para 21 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial of the case and undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

¶12

Learned Spl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the

¶14

court below is directed to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P. S. case no. 122 of 2026 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Dated:- 17.09.2026 Vedanti/

Sunil Kumar Mehta @ Sunil Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Mehta @ Sunil Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases