Sandeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

 ( 2026:JHHC:7173 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

A. B. A. No. 910 of 2026

¶4

Sandeep Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Rakesh Kumar, resident of House No. 826, Andhe Vaid Wali Gali, Indra Nagar P.O. and Police StationBrahmpuri (Chowki Gauriganj), District-Meerut, State-Uttar Pradesh

¶5

...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P

¶6

06/ 17.03.2026 : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

¶7

for the State.

¶8

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, registered under sections 414, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of I.P.C. and 63 of Copy Right Act and 8 (C)/21(C) of Bihar Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Rules, 1985, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. By way of placing F.I.R, he submits that even in the F.I.R allegations are there against one Umesh Kumar and Upendra Singh who have kept Codeine Phosphate containing 200 mg each in 100 ml phensedyl cough syrup in 24560 of bottles. He next submits that in the said godown the petitioner has kept wheat and rice. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was the accomplice of Umesh Kumar and Upendra Singh. The quantity of Codeine Phosphate containing 200 mg in 100 ml phensedyl cough syrup in 24560 of bottles is commercial quantity in the light of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and in view of that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

¶11

In the F.I.R, it is alleged that Codeine Phosphate containing 200 mg in a 100 ml phensedyl cough syrup in 24560 of bottles was recovered from the

¶12

 ( 2026:JHHC:7173 )

¶13

godown that is commercial quantity. The godown owner has taken the name of petitioner.

¶14

In course of argument it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that part of the articles have been kept by the petitioner in the said said godwon.

¶15

In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail application to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

¶16

Dt.17.03.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶17

satyarthi-

Sandeep Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. the 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

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ishwar Ganjhu Vs State of Jharkhand

Shivaji Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arayan Oraon Alias Aryan Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand